[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING TO REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION OF USDA FARM BILL RESEARCH PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
BIOTECHNOLOGY, HORTICULTURE, AND RESEARCH
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 17, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-20
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
42-598 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Ranking
JIM COSTA, California Minority Member
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
FILEMON VELA, Texas ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands Arkansas
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
Vice Chair VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia DOUG LaMALFA, California
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York TED S. YOHO, Florida
TJ COX, California RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota MIKE BOST, Illinois
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
JOSH HARDER, California TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
KIM SCHRIER, Washington JAMES COMER, Kentucky
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois DON BACON, Nebraska
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
JIMMY PANETTA, California
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa
______
Anne Simmons, Staff Director
Matthew S. Schertz, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands, Chair
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York NEAL P. DUNN, Florida Ranking
TJ COX, California Minority Member
JOSH HARDER, California GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey DOUG LaMALFA, California
KIM SCHRIER, Washington RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine TED S. YOHO, Florida
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California MIKE BOST, Illinois
JIMMY PANETTA, California JAMES COMER, Kentucky
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida
Brandon Honeycutt, Subcommittee Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Dunn, Hon. Neal P., a Representative in Congress from Florida,
opening statement.............................................. 4
Plaskett, Hon. Stacey E., a Delegate in Congress from Virgin
Islands, opening statement..................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Witness
Hutchins, Ph.D., Scott, Deputy Under Secretary for Research,
Education, and Economics, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C................................................ 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Supplementary material....................................... 35
Submitted questions.......................................... 36
HEARING TO REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION OF USDA FARM BILL RESEARCH PROGRAMS
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Stacey
E. Plaskett [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Plaskett, Delgado, Cox,
Harder, Brindisi, Schrier, Pingree, Carbajal, Panetta, Peterson
(ex officio), Dunn, Hartzler, LaMalfa, Davis, Bost, Comer, and
Baird.
Staff present: Kellie Adesina, Malikha Daniels, Brandon
Honeycutt, Ricki Schroeder, Patricia Straughn, Jeremy White,
Dana Sandman, and Jennifer Yezak.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STACEY E. PLASKETT, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM VIRGIN ISLANDS
The Chair. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research entitled, Hearing To
Review Implementation of USDA Farm Bill Research Programs, will
come to order. Thank you very much to Dr. Scott Hutchins who is
here with us this morning, and I also want to thank the
Chairman of the full Committee on Agriculture, Collin Peterson,
who is also with us as we begin.
Before we get started, I would just like to take a moment,
as a Member of Congress, as an American citizen, to reflect on
the passing of Elijah Cummings. Elijah Cummings was, of course,
as we all know, not only a Member of Congress, but the Chair of
the Oversight and Reform Committee here in this 116th Congress.
He came to Congress many years ago, representing his beloved
district of Baltimore. But I believe that he was much more than
that to most of us here on this dais and here in this Congress;
whether they be Members of Congress, staff, lobbyists, Federal
employees, anyone who came in contact with Mr. Cummings. He was
a gentleman. He was an angel among many of us, oftentimes who
maybe wanted to be not such an angel. He always operated with
fairness, was always very thoughtful in his deliberations,
always tried to find common ground, even in one of the most
contentious and partisan committees that this Congress has. He
worked across the aisle with individuals that people were
flabbergasted at how he had come to have personal relationships
with those individuals on the other side. And even among some
of the Members of his own caucus who didn't agree with him
oftentimes in the manner in which he attempted to keep his
committee above the rancor of what is happening here in
Washington. He was really a mentor for me. This is my third
term on the Oversight Committee. This last term, I waived on to
the Committee and sat right below him on the dais. And in
sitting below him, I told him, you are a good guy. I will be
the bad guy for you. Because he was just always so kind. Many
of us felt that oftentimes that may have been taken advantage
of, because he wanted to do the right thing all the time.
But we know that the father above is happy to have him with
him now, and we pray for Maya, his wife, and for his three
children, and for his family, and especially for the people of
Baltimore, as I know they are grieving as well, because he
always represented his hometown first of all.
And with that, let us just take a moment to reflect on him.
Again, thank you for joining us as we review the USDA's
implementation of the 2018 Farm Bill research programs with
Deputy Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics,
Scott Hutchins.
Strong investments in public agriculture research have
historically allowed our farmers, ranchers, and rural
communities to remain competitive and increase their overall
productivity. These investments are more critical now than
ever, with the agriculture sector attempting to adapt to a
changing climate and manage for increasingly volatile markets.
In June, I hosted a hearing in which Members of this
Subcommittee heard directly from farmers and researchers about
the need for continued scientific advancements. Their message
was clear: farmers and ranchers benefit from investments in
public agricultural research and strong extension services. I
believe that this Subcommittee and the full House Agriculture
Committee understands the value of trusted science. The 2018
Farm Bill emphasized our commitment to this cause, and ensured
that U.S. farmers and ranchers will have the tools necessary to
deal with future challenges. This can be seen in the increased
support for the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension
Initiative, continued support for programs like the Specialty
Crop Research Initiative, and the Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative, and the creation of new programs to support urban
agriculture and students at 1890 institutions.
My district has benefitted from sustained investment in
local researchers. Last year, the University of the Virgin
Islands received over $3 million from the National Institute of
Food and Agriculture, NIFA. These funds have been critical in
helping my farmers and ranchers overcome challenges associated
with climate change, tropical pest pressures, and resource
management.
Following passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, this Subcommittee
has turned its focus to USDA's implementation efforts. It is my
goal to ensure USDA is swiftly and efficiently getting
resources into the hands of researchers. At a time of continued
farm stress, it should be USDA's top priority to support
research efforts that directly benefit farmers.
We cannot discuss farm bill implementation; however,
without addressing what I believe will be a major impediment to
USDA's ability to effectively administer programs and complete
timely economic studies, the relocation of NIFA and ERS outside
the capitol region.
In a previous hearing, we heard farmers and researchers
express apprehension about the relocation proposal. They cited
a lack of stakeholder engagement and strong concerns over
program continuity as reasons for their opposition to Secretary
Perdue's proposal. Chair Marcia Fudge of the Nutrition
Subcommittee and I sent a letter to the Secretary raising these
concerns, and I can honestly say, I was disappointed in his
response and failure to outline a clear, robust plan for how
these agencies would prevent gaps in services.
Unfortunately, I believe my fears are becoming true. This
week, I received updates on staffing levels and status of
Fiscal Year 2019 funding. ERS has appropriated funding to
support 329 employees, but currently a total of 214 positions
are vacant, a vacancy rate of 65 percent. NIFA is in even worse
shape, it appears. Out of 344 appropriated positions, 264 of
those 344 are currently vacant, a vacancy rate of over 76
percent. I was told these extreme staff shortages mean some
grant recipients will not receive their funds until March of
2020. These gaps in service reinforce the notion that this
relocation was hurried, misguided, and mismanaged. ERS and NIFA
have been undermined at the very time these agencies require
knowledgeable staff to implement farm bill changes, administer
grants, and complete critical economic reports. Our farmers and
ranchers deserve better, and so do the valued career public
servants who left their positions within ERS and NIFA for other
opportunities.
As Subcommittee Chair, I expect ERS and NIFA to quickly be
restored to their former prominence. Dr. Hutchins, the Members
of this Subcommittee are looking to you and Secretary Perdue to
work expeditiously and deliberately to prevent further gaps in
service. This must be a top priority for you and Secretary
Perdue, and I expect to see tangible results, rather than hear
of plans and other types of lip service. If results are not
delivered and programs continue to suffer, we will continue
this discussion in the future.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Plaskett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Stacey E. Plaskett, a Delegate in Congress
from Virgin Islands
Good morning, and thank you for joining us today as we review
USDA's implementation of the 2018 Farm Bill research programs with
Deputy Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics Scott
Hutchins.
Strong investments in public agriculture research have historically
allowed our farmers, ranchers, and rural communities to remain
competitive and increase their overall productivity. These investments
are more critical now than ever, with the agriculture sector attempting
to adapt to a changing climate and manage for increasingly volatile
markets.
In June, I hosted a hearing in which Members of this Subcommittee
heard directly from farmers and researchers about the need for
continued scientific advancements. Their message was clear--farmers and
ranchers benefit from investments in public agriculture research and
strong extension services.
I believe that this Subcommittee, and the full House Agriculture
Committee, understands the value of trusted science. The 2018 Farm Bill
emphasized our commitment to this cause and ensured that U.S. farmer
and ranchers will have the tools necessary to deal with future
challenges. This can be seen in the increased support for the Organic
Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative, continued support for
programs like the Specialty Crop Research Initiative and the
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, and the creation of new
programs to support urban agriculture and students at 1890
institutions.
My district has benefitted from sustained investments in local
researchers. Just last year, the University of the Virgin Islands
received over $3 million from the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA). These funds have been critical in helping my
farmers and ranchers overcome challenges associated with climate
change, tropical pest pressures, and resource management.
Following passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, this Subcommittee has
turned its focus to USDA's implementation efforts. It is my goal to
ensure USDA is swiftly and efficiently getting resources into the hands
of researchers. At a time of continued farm stress, it should be USDA's
top priority to support research efforts that directly benefit farmers.
However, we cannot discuss farm bill implementation without
addressing what I believe will be a major impediment to USDA's ability
to effectively administer programs and complete timely economic
studies--the relocation of NIFA and ERS outside the National Capitol
Region.
In a previous hearing, we heard farmers and researchers express
apprehension about the relocation proposal. They cited a lack of
stakeholder engagement and strong concerns over program continuity as
reasons for their opposition to Secretary Perdue's proposal. Chair
Marcia Fudge and I sent a letter to the Secretary raising these
concerns, and I can honestly say I was disappointed in his response and
failure to outline a clear, robust plan for how these agencies would
prevent gaps in services.
Unfortunately, I believe my fears are becoming true. This week, I
received updates on staffing levels and the status of Fiscal Year 2019
funding. ERS has appropriated funding to support 329 employees, but
currently, a total of 214 positions are vacant--a vacancy rate of 65%.
To put it bluntly, NIFA is in even worse shape. Out of 344 appropriated
positions, 264 are currently vacant--a vacancy rate over 76%. I was
told these extreme staff shortages mean some grant recipients will not
receive their funds until March 2020.
These gaps in service reinforce the notion that this relocation was
hurried, misguided, and mismanaged. ERS and NIFA have been undermined
at the very time these agencies require knowledgeable staff to
implement farm bill changes, administer grants, and complete critical
economic reports. Our farmers and ranchers deserve better, and so do
the valued career public servants who have left their positions within
ERS and NIFA for other opportunities.
As Subcommittee Chair, I expect ERS and NIFA to quickly be restored
to their former prominence. Dr. Hutchins, the Members of this
Subcommittee are looking to you and Secretary Perdue to work
expeditiously and deliberately to prevent further gaps in service. This
must be a top priority for you and Secretary Perdue, and I expect to
see tangible results rather than hear lip service. If results are not
delivered and programs continue to suffer, we will continue this
discussion in the future.
Now, I'd like to recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr.
Dunn of Florida, for any opening remarks he would like to make.
The Chair. Now I would like to recognize the distinguished
Ranking Member, Mr. Dunn of Florida, for any opening remarks he
would like to make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. NEAL P. DUNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM FLORIDA
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I wish to
associate myself with your very gracious comments concerning
Congressman Cummings.
Good morning, and welcome, Dr. Hutchins. Thank you for your
service and spending some of your valuable time with us today.
I look forward to your testimony, and for the chance to hear an
update on your progress implementing the 2018 Farm Bill.
Those of us representing rural areas know that times are
still tough for agricultural producers, farmers, and ranchers,
and they face unbelievable risks from devastating weather
events and market uncertainty, and everything in between.
It is important that we have a strong agricultural research
infrastructure. We crafted the 2018 Farm Bill with this in
mind. While we faced significant budget pressures, I am proud
that the research title was an area that saw an increase in
funding and several positive updates to keep programs that our
producers rely on.
Of particular importance to my State of Florida, the Citrus
Disease Research and Extension Program, was reauthorized and
funded, continuing our commitment to fighting the citrus
greening disease that is still devastating the Florida industry
and threatening Texas and California as well.
I am also proud that we secured important priorities for
land-grant universities, including a new program to fund long-
deferred maintenance projects and language streamlining some of
the onerous reporting requirements.
The farm bill reauthorized the Farm and Ranch Stress
Assistance Network, reestablishing an important program that
will direct behavioral health resources to our farmers and
ranchers who are in need.
Finally, I am proud that the farm bill adopts several
provisions to continue to provide resources and make a level
playing field for the 1890 land-grant universities.
Dr. Hutchins, I am also interested in hearing an update on
the relocation of the NIFA project, and the Economic Research
Service. Perhaps you can put some granular information in there
about money saved and whatnot.
As you know, we had a hearing on this subject just before
you announced the Secretary's selection of Kansas City, and the
work done by those agencies is important to the future success
of the agricultural industry nationwide. As such, I am sure you
will keep us informed about how that is unwinding.
It is unfortunate we still see some efforts to derail the
Secretary's decision in this regard. I am afraid presidential
politics has crept into even this, which is usually a very
bipartisan issue. I look forward to working with you to help
fulfill the USDA's research mission, and will do my part to
ensure that you have resources necessary.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you.
I would like to welcome the USDA Deputy Under Secretary for
Research, Education, and Economics, Dr. Scott Hutchins. In this
role, Dr. Hutchins has oversight over the Office of the Chief
Scientist, the Agricultural Research Service, Economic Research
Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, and the
National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Dr. Hutchins
received a B.S. in entomology from Auburn University, an M.S.
in entomology from Mississippi State University, and a Ph.D. in
entomology from Iowa State University. Thank you for being here
with us.
We will now proceed to hearing your testimony. You will
have 5 minutes. When 1 minute is left, the light will turn
yellow as a signal for you to start wrapping up your testimony.
Dr. Hutchins, please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT HUTCHINS, Ph.D., DEPUTY UNDER
SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Dr. Hutchins. Good morning, Chair Plaskett, Ranking Member
Dunn, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak to you today to discuss agriculture
research and implementation of related provisions in the 2018
Farm Bill.
The Research, Education, and Economics Mission Area at the
United States Department of Agriculture is an incredible team
and powerful force for the good of U.S. agriculture. We have
fantastic success stories to tell and a mission that is really
never-ending: to ensure the long-term well-being of the
American agriculture system, as a provider of the most
affordable, abundant, and safe supply of food and fiber in the
world.
The REE Mission Area is comprised of the Office of the
Chief Scientist and four agencies as indicated: the
Agricultural Research Service, the Economic Research Service,
the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture. Each of these entities
provides unique products and services to U.S. agriculture, and
work as a team within REE.
The Agricultural Research Service is USDA's primary
intramural research agency. ARS has approximately 2,000
scientists and post-doctoral researchers, and 6,000 additional
staff supporting over 690 research projects at over 90
locations across the United States. These researchers produce
an immense amount of scientific and technical knowledge in
support of national agricultural priorities, and without a
doubt, ARS has and continues to produce a wide range of
scientific breakthroughs that benefit U.S. agricultural
producers and consumers.
The Economic Research Service continues to be a trusted
source of high quality and objective economic research to
inform and enhance public- and private-sector decision-making.
ERS reports provide information to decision makers across the
Federal Government and external stakeholders that create
significant insights on agricultural markets.
The mission of the National Agricultural Statistics Service
is to provide timely, accurate, and useful statistics for U.S.
agriculture. They conduct hundreds of surveys every year and
produce reports on the entire agricultural sector, including
production and supplies of food and fiber, prices paid and
received by farmers, farm labor and wages, farm finances,
chemical usage, and changes in the demographics of U.S.
agriculture.
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture is USDA's
extramural research agency, providing funding and leadership to
support research, education, and extension programs that
address national agriculture priorities. NIFA primarily does
this through competitive and formula grants. The competitive
grants are comprised of different grant programs, with the
largest being the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, or
AFRI. With AFRI grants, researchers across the country conduct
research and find solutions to problems that face producers and
consumers. Formula grants go to land-grant universities to
support them in conducting agriculture research and extension.
In addition to serving as Deputy Under Secretary, I oversee
the Office of the Chief Scientist. The Office supports
scientific prioritization and coordination across the entire
department, and convenes the USDA Science Council. The Council
facilitates cross departmental scientific coordination and
collaboration, and ensures that the Department and its
stakeholders are held to the very highest standards of
intellectual rigor and scientific integrity.
Across the REE mission, we are fully committed to
supporting research that ensures U.S. producers will be able to
adapt to changes in climate and continue to develop and
advocate for a wide range of sustainable intensification
practices.
For example, ERS researchers recently published a study
that examined the potential effects of climate change on risk
management, and ARS published over 500 scientific articles
related to climate change just last year alone.
So, to be clear, USDA openly supports and strongly
encourages the work done by our scientists in all the agencies
in these critical areas of our research.
Pertaining to the implementation of the 2018 Farm Bill,
each of the four REE agencies and the Office of the Chief
Scientist were included in the farm bill, but the vast majority
of the provisions pertained to NIFA. And some notable
accomplishments in NIFA so far include publishing and updating
matching requirements, charts, and indirect cost charts for
stakeholders to inform changes from the 2018 Farm Bill made to
NIFA's many grant program requirements. They have published the
RFA for beginning farmer and rancher program development, and I
am pleased to say those awards were just announced yesterday.
They published the RFA for the 1890 scholarship program, which
was championed by Representative Scott, with commitment to
ensure that these funds were available for 1890 land-grant
institutions.
I am also pleased to report that we recently completed the
relocation of ERS and NIFA to the Kansas City region on
September 30. As you recall, in August of 2018 Secretary Perdue
announced that the Department would be relocating a portion of
these agencies outside of the National Capitol Region, whilst
maintaining their headquarters in D.C. We are confident this
relocation will improve USDA's ability to attract and retain
highly qualified staff with training and interest in
agriculture, placing these important USDA agencies closer to
many of our stakeholders, and provide a more efficient long-
term operating model.
At present, both agencies are focused on hiring for vacant
positions, and have already had success. Be assured that we are
committed to both and that ERS and NIFA will thrive in their
new location and continue their service to U.S. agriculture.
In conclusion, thank you for your continued support of
agricultural research, education, and economics at USDA. We do
truly strive to fulfill Secretary Perdue's mantra of: ``Do
right and feed everyone,'' and I look forward to answering your
questions today about the 2018 Farm Bill. Thank you, ma'am.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hutchins follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Hutchins, Ph.D., Deputy Under Secretary for
Research, Education, and Economics, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Agricultural Research and 2018 Farm Bill Implementation
Good morning. Chair Plaskett, Ranking Member Dunn, and Members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you all
today to discuss agricultural research and implementation of related
provisions in the 2018 Farm Bill. The Research, Education, & Economics
(REE) Mission Area at the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) is an incredible team and powerful force for the good of U.S.
Agriculture--we have fantastic success stories to tell. I appreciate
the opportunity to share a few of those with you today, as well as
inform you on the progress we have made in the implementation of the
2018 Farm Bill.
The REE Mission Area is comprised of the Office of the Chief
Scientist (OCS) and four agencies: the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS), the Economic Research Service (ERS), the National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS), and the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA). Each of these entities provides services that are
critical to the well-being of the American agriculture system--provider
of the most affordable, abundant, and safe supply of food and fiber in
the world.
ARS
The Agricultural Research Service is USDA's primary intramural
research agency. ARS has approximately 2,000 scientists and post-
doctoral researchers and 6,000 additional staff supporting around 690
research projects at over 90 locations. These researchers produce an
immense output of scientific and technical knowledge. ARS scientists
produced over 4,500 peer-reviewed journal articles in 2018 alone.
Without a doubt, ARS has and continues to produce a wide range of
scientific breakthroughs that benefit U.S. agricultural producers and
consumers. Recent innovations from ARS scientists include non-woven
cotton gauze that could usher in next-generation wound dressings that
quickly stanch bleeding and promote healing, a rotating cross-arm
trellis and cane-training system for the floricane-fruiting blackberry
to help growers overcome environmental challenges, produce more fruit,
and reduce labor costs, and a test strip for major foodborne pathogens
that reduces testing time from 24-72 hours to about 30 minutes.
ERS
The Economic Research Service continues to be a trusted source of
high-quality and objective economic research to inform and enhance
public- and private-sector decision making. ERS research covers a range
of topics which fit generally into six buckets: Agricultural Economy,
Food and Nutrition, Food Safety, Global Markets and Trade, Resources
and Environment, and Rural Economy. ERS reports provide information to
decision makers across the Federal Government and external
stakeholders.
ERS reports provide significant insight on agricultural markets.
Notably, these include in-depth analyses of commodity markets such as
the outlook of livestock, dairy, and poultry and the outlook for sugar
and sweeteners, both of which will be released today. Upcoming reports
will provide information on food prices, livestock and meat domestic
production, and an annual report on fruit and tree nuts.
NASS
The mission of the National Agricultural Statistics Service is to
provide timely, accurate, and useful statistics for U.S. [a]griculture.
They conduct hundreds of surveys every year and produce reports on the
entire agricultural sector, including production and supplies of food
and fiber, prices paid and received by farmers, farm labor and wages,
farm finances, chemical use, and changes in the demographics of U.S.
agriculture.
Earlier this year, we were proud to have the opportunity to provide
NASS's largest and most visible report, the Census of Agriculture.
Conducted every 5 years, the Census provides a complete count of U.S.
farms, ranches, and the people who operate them. The Census also looks
at ownership, operator characteristics, production practices, income,
and expenditures. Highlights from the 2017 Census include:
One in four producers is a beginning farmer with 10 or fewer
years of experience;
36 percent of all producers are female, and 56 percent of
all farms have at least one female decision maker;
96 percent of farms and ranches are family owned; and
Farms with Internet access rose from 69.6 percent in 2012 to
75.4 percent in 2017.
NIFA
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture is USDA's extramural
research agency, providing funding and leadership to support research,
education, and extension programs that address national agricultural
priorities. NIFA primarily does this through competitive and formula
grants.
Competitive grants are comprised of different grant programs with
the largest being the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI).
With AFRI grants, researchers across the country are able to conduct
research and find solutions to problems that face producers. For
instance:
Clemson University researchers are using new nutrient-
management drone and camera technology to save up to $54 per
acre on cotton production;
Researchers at the University of Missouri have found that
zinc plays a key role in promoting fertility in male livestock.
In addition to improving in vitro fertilization and artificial
insemination in livestock, the research provides a quick and
accurate evaluation of livestock fertility;
Fellow entomologists at my Alma Mater, Auburn University,
have discovered a wasp that may help soybean producers and
other farmers in the Southeast rid their fields of the invasive
pest known as the kudzu bug, enabling them to produce more
crops and see higher yields; and
Researchers at Kansas State University are using the gene
editing tool CRISPR to improve the wheat genes that control
several yield component traits, such as seed size and the
number of seeds per plant.
Formula grants go to land-grant universities to support them in
conducting agricultural research and extension. While much of this
funding is used to support research projects that address critical
areas of need, formula funding is also used to support the basic
research and extension infrastructure needed to disseminate knowledge
and provide training to individuals in a variety of ways.
One example of this is at North Carolina State University, where
extension professionals and volunteers provided 13,000 educational
programs to 1.9 million residents. Their efforts improved the health
and well-being of 115,000 North Carolinians through food and nutrition
programs, prepared more than 263,000 youth through 4-H programs, and
provided $300 million of economic impact to the state.
NIFA's extension work also provides help to millions of family
caregivers, more than 80 percent of whom feel they don't have the
information or training they need. With a NIFA formula grant, Family &
Consumer Sciences educators from Oklahoma State University Cooperative
Extension have developed a comprehensive health education curriculum
that includes lessons in proper nutrition, aging and finances, and
prevention of elder abuse and exploitation.
NIFA also supports workforce development, including the 4-H
organization. In 2018, NIFA-funded programs supported 104,149 students
through recruitment, retention, curriculum development, and faculty
development. Through 4-H, NIFA supports a new generation of community
and agricultural leaders.
Office of the Chief Scientist
In addition to serving as Deputy Under Secretary, I oversee the
Office of the Chief Scientist. The Office of the Chief Scientist
supports scientific prioritization and coordination across the entire
Department and convenes the USDA Science Council. The council
facilitates cross-Departmental scientific coordination and
collaboration and ensures that research supported by and scientific
advice provided to the Department and its stakeholders are held to the
highest standards of intellectual rigor and scientific integrity.
We are fully committed to supporting research that ensures U.S.
producers will be able to adapt to changes in climate and continue to
develop and advocate for a wide range of sustainable intensification
practices. For example, ERS researchers recently published a study that
examined the potential effects of climate change on risk management.
USDA has no policy, no practice, and no intent to minimize, discredit,
de-emphasize, or otherwise influence the rigorous climate-based science
of any agency or partner institution. We support the work done by our
scientists in this area of our research. Tools such as USDA's Climate
Hubs and the Long-Term Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) Network
communicate climate research directly to the producers these changes
most directly impact. Additionally, the National Climate Hub
Coordinator compiles a quarterly report that provides information on
publications, outreach events, and technical support.
2018 Farm Bill Implementation
REE held a stakeholder listening session on March 21, 2019, to
begin the process of farm bill implementation with all REE leadership
present. While each of the four REE agencies and the Office of the
Chief Scientist were included in the farm bill, the vast majority of
the provisions pertain to NIFA. Thus far, NIFA has:
Published the Request for Applications (RFA) for the Organic
Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) and is in
the process of finalizing awards;
Published the updated matching requirements chart and
indirect cost chart on its website and sent an update to
stakeholders so that they are informed of the changes the 2018
Farm Bill made to NIFA's many grant program requirements;
Published the RFA for the Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Development Program (BFRDP) component of the Farming
Opportunities Training and Outreach and is in the process of
finalizing awards;
Published a Federal Register Notice regarding new Non-Land-
Grant Colleges of the Agriculture certification process. NIFA
currently has certified 39 Non-Land-Grant Colleges of
Agriculture using the updated definition;
Published the RFA for the 1890s scholarship program, which
was championed by Representative Scott, with applications due
on November 2019. NIFA's goal is to ensure that these funds are
available for 1890 land-grant institutions to begin awarding
scholarships for the next academic school year; and
Provided guidance to 1890 land-grant institutions regarding
the change to carryover of funds for extension at these
institutions.
ERS/NIFA
In August 2018, Secretary Perdue announced that the Department
would be relocating the Economic Research Service (ERS) and the
National Institute [of] Food and Agriculture (NIFA) outside of the
National Capit[o]l Region. The relocation to the Kansas City region was
principally completed on September 30, 2019. We believe this decision
ultimately will improve USDA's ability to attract and consistently
retain highly qualified staff with training and interests in
agriculture, as well as place these important USDA resources closer to
many of our stakeholders. A short driving distance from multiple land-
grant and research universities, Kansas City is a vibrant urban center
in the heartland of America and a growing agricultural hub. It is also
already home to a considerable Federal workforce, including a
significant presence of USDA employees and the Kansas City `Ag Bank'
Federal Reserve. Anticipated savings from this move over the long-term
will allow more funding for research of critical needs, like rural
prosperity and agricultural competitiveness, and for programs and
employees to be retained in the long run, even in the face of
tightening budgets. It is important to note that the headquarters of
both agencies will remain in the National Capitol Region.
As a part of this move, all employees were offered the ability to
retain their position, were offered relocation assistance, and are
receiving the same base pay as before in tandem with the locality pay
for the new location. Additionally, the Department has utilized
available resources and authorities to assist with transition for those
who declined to relocate with their roles. For example, 149 employees
have found new employment within the Federal Government in the National
Capit[o]l Region and, of these, 123 are remaining within USDA.
The work of NIFA and ERS is essential, and ERS and NIFA leadership,
under the direction of the REE Mission Area, are working diligently to
finalize this transition efficiently and with minimal disruption to our
employees and mission critical work.
Both agencies have utilized a robust set of continuity tools,
including detailees, re-employed annuitants, and temporary extensions
of relocation dates and both agencies are focused on hiring for vacant
positions. Together, these agencies have over 100 active recruitments
in process and continue to onboard new talent in Kansas City. With the
talent pool in the Kansas City region and our aggressive hiring
strategy, we fully anticipate that our new employees, along with the
expertise of our relocating employees, will provide the same excellent
level of work for which ERS and NIFA have been known.
We are confident that we will be successful, exceeding even the
high benchmarks previously established for both ERS and NIFA.
In conclusion, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to
highlight some of the fantastic research being done in the Research,
Education, & Economics mission area, provide an update on the status of
REE farm bill implementation and address some specific topics of
interest. Thank you for your continued support of this vital aspect of
the services USDA provides in our quest to ``Do Right and Feed
Everyone.'' I look forward to answering your questions, and I thank you
for the support that this Committee has always shown for [a]griculture
research and innovation.
The Chair. Thank you so much for your testimony and for
being here again, and again for being here with us to answer
these questions.
I do believe in--when you say that you are committed to
these areas and that you want to have efficient and well-run
research for our farmers and ranchers. I do have a question for
you about some of the statements that you have made here.
You said despite USDA's assertion of the cost savings, the
Agriculture and Applied Economics Association states that the
relocation of ERS and NIFA will cost taxpayers between $83
million and $182 million. Can you explain when calculating your
cost-benefit analysis, how did you consider the value of lost
research from employees who chose to resign or retire? And did
you consider the value of the resulting brain drain and loss of
institutional knowledge when calculating that cost-benefit
analysis?
I know those are softer, more difficult costs to kind of
recognize.
Dr. Hutchins. Yes, thank you for the question.
The USDA, to be completely transparent and to be able to be
objective, utilized the cost-benefit approach where we used
really only the facts-based information that we had. The costs
that were associated here in the D.C. area, the costs
associated in the new area opportunities, and really developed
that in terms of a straightforward cost-benefit analysis.
While it is true that we have lost some excellent talent in
both of those agencies, we have every confidence that we will
be able to replace that and we have made exceptional activities
to be able to continue with some of those individuals that were
not able to do, that had elected to retire and so forth. And
so, it is very difficult for us to put a subjective value on
those kinds of considerations. And so, to be transparent and
fair and data-driven, we elected not to do that.
We do believe that we will be able to build those agencies
to not only to where they were, but beyond where they were in
terms of capacity and capability, and some of the considerable
cost savings, over $300 million in nominal fees, will be
reinvested in those agencies in order to ensure that that
occurs.
The Chair. And can you give us just an outline, the top
level objectives, how you plan to do that? At this point, I
understand that there are significant gaps in personnel in some
of those areas. How do you plan to ramp up as quickly as
possible to continue to meet the objectives?
Dr. Hutchins. Thank you for the question.
I have stated previously in the past, two primary
objectives I have had since we have been involved in this
project. One was to take care of the employees as best we
could, and make the transition for those as feasible and as
easy as possible. Both those relocating to Kansas City, as well
as those who, for personal reasons or whatever reason, have
elected not to do that. We have been very successful in both of
those efforts.
And then the other side of that, which is what you are
addressing, is a continuity of mission. In the context of
continuity of mission, we have done several things in the
short-term. We have worked with employees who were interested
to return as retired annuitants. A number of individuals have
elected to do that. These folks are very--whether they have
gone to Kansas City or not, they are very, very committed to
the mission of these agencies, and they wanted to have the
opportunity to transfer their work, to finish their work, and
to complete their work. So, we have done that.
The other thing that we have done is we have accelerated
our hiring tremendously. We have had the benefit of having some
opportunities for direct hiring authority. We have also had the
opportunity to work with the Kansas City region to develop
employment fairs and so forth to bring in candidates. And just
as an example, some of the positions that we would typically
recruit for, such as our program leaders in NIFA, we would
normally have 50 to 60 applicants for that. We have those
advertised now and we are having 400 to 500 applicants for
those particular positions. It will take time to matriculate
the government hiring process. You probably are aware of that.
But we have no shortage of interest and no shortage of
candidates, and we will work with all due speed in order to
fulfill those gaps.
The Chair. And when you say you will work with all due
speed to do that, that is related on the hiring and the
staffing. Even in terms of the permanent principle office
space, my understanding is that permanent office space has yet
to be secured and the agencies are still dramatically--some
staff in Washington are working on extensions, and there are
delays in terms of getting that permanent office space secured.
Why is that?
Dr. Hutchins. Thank you for the questions.
Two clarifications on that. There are some individuals that
are continuing to work that we extended their time period in
Washington, D.C. They were working in some very specific areas
that we wanted to make sure for continuity in mission that we
maintained for a bit longer period of time. Not extensive, but
3 months to 6 months in order for those particular very
specialized units in order to continue that work. That is not
related at all to office space available in Kansas City. The
folks in Kansas City have landed in the USDA Building, the
Beacon Center. It is a fantastic facility. It is up and
running. I visited there personally on day 1 and day 2 when
they arrived, and so, they are very able to function in that
capability. We have a lot of opportunity to expand within that
center during this hiring process.
The Chair. Okay. I will ask my esteemed colleague, the
Ranking Member, for his 5 minutes at this time.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Dr. Hutchins, again, thank you for being here today, and
thank you for the updates on implementation.
In the farm bill, we secured language expanding the
membership in the Citrus Disease Subcommittee and secured an
additional $125 million over the next 5 years for citrus
research. Can you give us an update on the status of the Citrus
Disease Research and Extension Program, briefly?
Dr. Hutchins. Yes, sir, I would be happy to.
The citrus greening disease obviously is a tremendous
devastating disease and situation in Florida. As an
entomologist, I am familiar with the psyllid situation, and for
years, we have been working to do everything we can to mitigate
that loss. This research and that program will help that
tremendously.
NIFA is ready to draft the RFA for this program. They have
been working to finalize the subcommittee as part of the
requirement, as part of the NAREEE (National Agricultural
Research, Extension, Education, and Economics) Board in order
to do that, and as soon as that is completed, which should be
within days, we will put those two groups together in order to
develop that plan and develop those RFAs.
I would also point out that while that is occurring, the
research is continuing to occur. USDA has been supporting that
in a tremendous area that the University of Florida has.
Obviously, a lot of folks are working in this space.
Mr. Dunn. I assure you that we have a keen interest in that
research, and anything that you can share with us, going
forward, will be appreciated.
Switching gears to the relocation, you recently visited the
new center in Kansas City and I would like to have a little bit
about your experience there and the morale of the relocated and
new employees.
Dr. Hutchins. Thank you.
It was a tremendous visit. I have been there several times
at Kansas City, several times now, including the original site
visits. And when I visited and arrived on day 1 and took time
on day 2 as people were just getting settled in with their
badges and those kinds of things, I took the time to visit
every single work station that was there, everybody and visit
with them personally. And what I was so enlightened to see and
to hear was how happy everyone there was about two things. One
is about the fact that they are there working on their mission
and that they are moving forward on that mission; very eager to
do the rebuilding that was referenced earlier and to do that
and to take it to that next level.
The other thing that I was really interested in hearing and
seeing that they shared with me without asking was how much
they enjoyed the region. They were talking about commute times
of 10 minutes versus an 1\1/2\ hours. They were showing us
pictures of their homes that they would never have been able to
purchase in this region. One individual had a 6 acre horse
farm.
Everybody has a different story and everybody has a
different living preference, whether it is urban or rural or
what have you, but they were, all the ones that I spoke to,
were very pleased with the region personally, and very eager
and excited about the professional challenge that they have,
including the new employees. And we do have several new ones in
Kansas City.
Mr. Dunn. I am so very, very happy that our employees are
happy, because happy scientists do better research.
Recent media reports have indicated that USDA research into
the ways that farmers and ranchers adapt to the effects of
climate change has been hampered by this Administration. Can
you confirm that the USDA has no policy, practice, or intent to
minimize or discredit or de-emphasize climate-related science
carried out by the USDA?
Dr. Hutchins. Sir, thank you for that question.
I can absolutely confirm for this Committee that that is
not the case. I have been with the USDA since January, and I
have seen no evidence or no indication at any level under any
circumstance.
Mr. Dunn. And you were a user of it before then. As a
follow-up to that question, when the first media reports were
coming out about this purported resistance of that, did you not
send a memo to the leaders of the research agencies encouraging
them to continue with the agency's research on this very topic?
Dr. Hutchins. Yes, sir, I did send a memo. But more
importantly, my entire leadership team--the agency leads for
all of the agencies--cosigned that, and we wanted our career
scientists to understand that we are there to support them and
that we support the research that they are doing.
Mr. Dunn. Excellent. I am glad to hear that.
I have one other comment rather than a question. We carried
a provision in the 2018 Farm Bill to eliminate a disparity in
the way the funds were handled in extension activities between
the 1890 land-grant universities and the 1862 land-grant
institutions. However, we are aware that these funds are still
being controlled by different sets of rules, specifically, the
1862 extension programs are able to carry funds over for 5
years, and the 1890 programs are only allowed 2 years. Now, I
know you are in touch with the land-grant institution
stakeholders on the issue, but I would like you, going forward,
to keep us informed here on this Committee about why those
disparities continue to exist.
And with that, Madam Chair, I thank you and I will yield
back.
The Chair. Thank you very much.
You mentioned something about the agency not having changes
in terms of climate research. There was a report that said that
.3 percent of USDA's budget was going towards assisting farmers
in adapting to climate change. I don't know if you agree with
that percentage or not, but what are you doing specifically in
your mission statement to support climate research and getting
information to farmers on the ground?
And after you answer that question, Mr. Cox of California
will be next.
Dr. Hutchins. Thank you, ma'am. The .3, I can't say for
sure where that number came from. I believe it was referencing
specifically the climate hubs. But there is so much more going
on within USDA, in addition to and in support of the climate
hubs.
For example, within the REE mission area, we have
identified our leadership team, five significant themes that we
are focused on across the agencies. One of those is sustainable
ag intensification, and that includes a lot of things in it.
But most prominent within that would be soil health, for
example, and the ability to sequester carbon and those kinds of
activities. We have over 3,500 projects across our four
agencies in R&D working just within sustainable
intensification.
The other one is ag climate adaptation. We are committed to
ensure that U.S. agriculture adapts to whatever climate
scenarios present themselves, and we have over 580 projects
across these four agencies that work in that space. We are 100
percent in on making sure that U.S. agriculture is resilient
and able to adapt to climate opportunities that present
themselves.
The Chair. Thank you.
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much for being here, Deputy Under
Secretary Hutchins.
Just to follow up on the Chair and Ranking Member's point,
is that so there is an overall acceptance that climate change
is real and a factor that is influencing U.S. agriculture?
Dr. Hutchins. I believe the body of work. I have been clear
in other testimonies in the Senate that the body of work is
pretty clear that the climate is changing over time, and so the
focus for agriculture, as I have indicated, is a real positive
opportunity for us to do two things. One is to be able to
mitigate to the extent that we can. There are a number of best
practices. As I understand the climate report, the last one
that was published, U.S. agriculture represents about 8.9
percent of the emissions, and we can improve on that. We can do
better with a lot of best practices.
Our focus in USDA is to work with and develop those
technologies and those best practices to allow agriculture to
mitigate.
But, as I indicated earlier, our real focus is to make sure
that we adapt. We will mitigate as much as we can. There are a
lot of factors within the U.S. and outside the U.S. that affect
it, but we definitely need to adapt to it. And so, we have
breeding programs, we have a number of activities that are
specifically focused to support our farmers in that regard.
Mr. Cox. Great, thanks so much.
And so, I come from California's 21st Congressional
District, which is essentially the top ag district in the top
ag state, and in a district that is as diverse as mine, as you
can appreciate, farmers rely heavily on public research and
advances made by this research creates revolutionary tools,
technology to combat pests and disease, and that is why
California's Central Valley reigns as the most agriculturally
productive region in the country.
And one such group that is reliant on strong support and
expedient actions by the USDA are my citrus growers, speaking
to Mr. Dunn there. And in the 2018 Farm Bill, the Citrus
Disease Subcommittee was expanded and reauthorized through
2023. The Secretary of Agriculture has not yet made
appointments to this subcommittee. It is imperative that the
Secretary make these soon in order to continue critical
research to fight the HLB disease that currently threatens
California and Florida citrus growers.
When will the Secretary announce these crucial board
appointments?
Dr. Hutchins. Sir, just to follow up with that same
question, we have that in process. It would be within days that
that would be complete. I have already seen the draft, and then
we will immediately move to have that completed. So, we are
advancing that.
I would also add that USDA, NIFA is working with the
Foundation for Food and Agriculture as well to convene a group
to focus in this area as well. It is a top priority for us, and
we will have that subcommittee named and operational here
within a few days.
Mr. Cox. Just so--certainly by the end of the month?
Dr. Hutchins. That would be my full expectation.
Mr. Cox. Okay, great.
And then more generally, President Trump, through Executive
Order, has ordered departments to cut these vital advisory
committees and reduce the ways in which stakeholders are able
to engage with Federal agencies. Can you commit to maintaining
these vital committees, and elaborate on the Agency's plan for
increasing engagement with the stakeholders?
Dr. Hutchins. Sir, I understand the Executive Order. I
understand it, the Department has gone through a review of its
various departments, and the ones including these will continue
in force.
Mr. Cox. Okay, great.
Well, thanks for that commitment to have that subcommittee
named within a few days. We will look forward to that.
Dr. Hutchins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cox. With that, I will yield the balance of my time.
The Chair. Thank you. Mrs. Hartzler, you have 5 minutes.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Dr. Hutchins, you highlighted several benefits of
relocation of the ERS and NIFA to Kansas City region in your
testimony, and I just wanted to underscore your efforts here,
and share our region's dedication to seeing that this is a
continued success for these two agencies.
Being in the heartland, we are very excited about this
move, and concur with you that we have the personnel that will
be able to fill these positions. We are excited about it, and
being there close to the stakeholders is really important. And
so, our farmers and ranchers support it. I represent the
University of Missouri and we are co-hosting a job fair there
with you in November, and I am very excited not only for the
cost savings that will be reinvested back into these agencies--
that will be very helpful for the research--but also the
quality of life and just the product that will be developed
there. I commend you on your efforts. I stand ready to continue
to support you, and would just certainly oppose any efforts to
try to stop this forward progress that has been made. So, keep
up the great work there.
I did have a question on another topic, though. Farm
country is experiencing a lot of uncertainty, and the
reestablished Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network is a
really important tool for many of our producers. Could you
please shed some light on the status of this program, and what
impact you expect this to have moving forward?
Dr. Hutchins. Thank you very much, and let me just also say
in return that the University of Missouri, Kansas State, the
whole region has just been fantastic to work with. They have
been open arms. They invited myself and other members to join
the Animal Health Corridor homecoming dinner, which we did, and
I just had a great opportunity. And everyone in that region and
everyone outside the broader region within that area is very
excited about this.
With regard to the very important program of Farm and Ranch
Stress Assistance, that program has been reauthorized until
2023 at $10 million appropriations each of the Fiscal Years
2019 through 2023, and the 2019 appropriations Act included $2
million for the assistance program.
A couple of important points here, it does allow Indian
Tribes to be eligible for the grants, which is a very important
aspect of this. The request for application was issued on June
25, and I am pleased to say--and with a deadline of July 25 of
2019, and I am really pleased to say that we expect those
awards to be made next week, and they will be implemented
within our extension networks within that area immediately.
It is a critical program. We know it is a difficult time in
the farming communities right now, and really applaud Congress
for having the foresight to build this and appropriate these
kinds of funds.
Mrs. Hartzler. Great. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you very much. Now Mr. Brindisi of the
Empire State--I am a native New Yorker, so of course I always
have to big up New York. Mr. Brindisi, 5 minutes.
Mr. Brindisi. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that.
Welcome, Deputy Under Secretary Hutchins.
Like many Members on this panel, I am concerned that the
land-grant university that serves my state, in this case,
Cornell, has experienced significant delays receiving NIFA
funding. Cornell has about $5 million in projects that have
been awarded, but the agency has been holding onto the funds
pending processing. These are pretty important projects on pest
and disease mitigation and improving organic dairy exports. The
release of NIFA funds this year will be, on average, an
additional 2 months later than previous years. Why is this?
Dr. Hutchins. Well, as has been indicated, we do have an
opportunity--we do have a hill to climb in the short-term in
order to ensure that we do fulfill and have everything out the
door, as it were, with regard to NIFA. But we have committed to
do that by March of 2020, and we have prioritized the process
of doing that.
We have prioritized, for example, the 1890 and the 1994
groups that have less flexibility and leeway. As important,
what we have done is we have great meetings and continuous
contact with stakeholders like Cornell, as an example, to make
sure that they understand what our situation is and that we can
respond to any specific shortfalls or emergency issues that
they have.
We are committed to really fulfilling the mission this
year. I am not going to sugar coat the challenge that we have.
I never have. We do have a hill to climb. We have done all that
we can, as much as we can to intervene to bring in some
temporary resources to help folks do it.
I have been very pleased from the land-grant institutions
have contacted us to say, ``How can we help you? We are in this
for the long-term. How can we help you?'' And so, we are taking
advantage of that. We are going to do all we can to make sure
that every university that has money that is part of this
process receives their money as quickly as possible, and no
later than March 2020. Some will actually receive it earlier
than others, but we are going to make sure that that happens.
And if there is a specific program or contact, we would
encourage Cornell or whomever else to contact their NIFA
representative or visit their website and find out how we can
accelerate that situation.
Mr. Brindisi. Okay. Going forward, we can expect that you
are going to take actions to minimize these delays, moving
forward?
Dr. Hutchins. Absolutely, yes, sir.
And let me just also add, if I can, that this is an
opportunity for us with both of these agencies, but NIFA
specifically to really step back and look at the process. We
have also received lots of feedback about the administrative
burden and this and that and the other thing. It is an
opportunity for us to step back and say, ``Can we do this
better in the long-term?'' As we rebuild the staff, we also
want to rebuild the process within, of course, the
Congressional rules to ensure that we can be more responsive,
to ensure that we can reduce the burden of administration, and
that we can be better servants to the land-grants, which we are
here for.
While we are working through the short-term challenge, we
have an eye on the endgame, which is to be a much better, more
service-oriented functioning organization, and with the
opportunity with the savings that we will have, we will also
have the opportunity, we believe, to actually do more research
and to build more capability. We are building those kinds of
gold standards into where we go forward.
Mr. Brindisi. Thank you. And I just want to follow up, too,
on the Chair's question about that recent report about the 0.3
percent of USDA's budget regarding climate change. I know you
said that you weren't sure where that particular number came
from, but in that report, there was also mention that USDA has
not actively promoted research related to climate change, and
that the climate hubs have continued to operate with extremely
limited staff and no dedicated resources. Do you agree with
that report, and what do you have to say about that?
Dr. Hutchins. Sir, I do not agree with that report, per se.
The climate hubs themselves do have dedicated resources.
They may not be Congressionally mandated resources, but they
are dedicated and they have been in place ever since they were
originated. But, I also want to emphasize the point that there
is a lot more going on within USDA than just the climate hubs.
They are fantastic, but we have a tremendous amount of work
going on in that space.
In terms of the promotion, agriculture is one of those
unique areas where every field, every situation is unique. And
so, what we have is a network through our extension service,
through these hubs, and through other places where we can work
hand in hand with farmers and growers to adapt the practices
that are best for them. Those kinds of communications, that
kind of teaching, that kind of mentorship, that kind of program
is not amenable to press releases and things like that.
Mr. Brindisi. Sure.
Dr. Hutchins. We are focused on being successful and
showing results, and that is where our focus is.
Mr. Brindisi. How do you disseminate the information to
farmers and ranchers?
Dr. Hutchins. Many, many ways. The hubs themselves have
aspects. Our extension service that is funded by the states as
well as by NIFA is, of course, a key aspect of that. We have
all kinds of partnerships with NGOs and with other groups that
we all work together. I met just yesterday with a coalition of
soil health groups. There are multiple ways that we do that,
and it is a key focus and priority for us.
Mr. Brindisi. Thank you.
Dr. Hutchins. Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you. Mr. LaMalfa of California, your 5
minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome today. I am, again, very pleased with the effort
made by USDA to: ``Go west, young man,'' as the saying goes.
But, accessibility for people that are truly in the field is
important. And I know from personal experience, $500 plane
tickets, $50 cab rides from the airport, $200 a night hotel
rooms, and a cab ride everywhere around town, it is not cheap
for regular folks to get back here and try to have their little
15 minutes of fame. And so, I commend the effort by USDA to
move some of the operations.
Do you identify other areas where more of these operations
could be moved farther west? You know that California is indeed
a strong hub of agricultural activity and research, and so many
things that are happening there. We had a great visit with the
Secretary a few weeks ago out west in California. Can you see
more effort that could be made in locating directly more USDA
operations in California, in the West, or outside of
Washington, D.C.?
Dr. Hutchins. Well, sir, thank you for the question. I have
not done any kind of analysis in that regard. We are, of
course, always looking, for example, within our ARS
organization to see where we can strengthen, and we have a big
major investment going into strengthen the Salinas research
station in California. But I am not involved and there are no
active plans that I am aware of at this point in time to look
into any others.
But if I may, I would just want to point out that while we
are moving significant portions of both of these agencies, I
just want to remind the Committee that the headquarters for
both of those agencies is staying in Washington, D.C. And what
we did was a very deliberate process of trying to identify--
actually, the agencies themselves did this. What are the most
appropriate aspects that should stay here, and what would be
the areas that we could move? And what I did the first week on
the job was I contacted the director of the Centers for Disease
Control, because I recognize that there are advantages to
making sure that our agencies stay connected with the other
science organizations. That has been a criticism. It has been a
concern, and I recognize that. I visited with Dr. Redfield for
some time and said, ``Look, CDC is a very highly respected
science organization. It is in Atlanta. How do you do that?''
And so, he was very gracious in sharing a lot of practices, a
lot of approaches, and we incorporated all of those into our
design.
NIFA, for example, for the folks in D.C. will be spending
virtually all of their time focused on those connections with
NIH and with FDA and with EPA and those groups. We have thought
through this very, very carefully.
In the case of ERS, \1/3\ of the agency will remain here,
and so, that group will be working very closely with the Office
of the Chief Economist and with other groups to make sure that
their reports that are Congressionally mandated are done on
time.
I just want this Committee to know that we have thought
through this carefully in terms of the components that stay
here and the components that would be in a better position and
be more operationally effective and closer to customers.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well certainly, you need to have a foothold
here where many decisions are made, and it is a clearinghouse
for a lot of that. But when you get right back down to
research, the new technologies, and whether responding to
changes in weather and we have been for decades in agriculture
on my own farm, et cetera.
I also want to emphasize the forestry aspect, as obviously
U.S. Forest Service is a department within USDA, and the
extreme importance that the issues we have in the West are
completely different with whatever holdings there is east of
the Mississippi. I know you are aware of that as we burn so
many hundreds of thousands of acres every year, unfortunately.
We need much more action by the Forest Service to be inclined
to do more on forest management, and to continue to research
what are the best ways. We have a pretty good idea of what
needs to be done out there, but that has to also reach through
the bureaucracy to get the work on the ground, et cetera. Can
you see that we have an opportunity to do more within forestry,
because again, I have had entire communities burn in my
district, and the threat of that is still ongoing all over the
West. What more can we be doing in the Forest Service with this
research or with the possibly relocating more of our resources
in the West instead of here on the forestry side?
Dr. Hutchins. From a research standpoint, some of the steps
that I have taken is I invited Dr. Friend, who is the R&D
leader for the Forest Service, because they do have their own
R&D organization, to be part of our leadership staff in REE, so
he is an adjunct member, and we work to coordinate in that
regard. He has been a very great contributor in that way.
I can't speak to personally anything in terms of the fire
suppression or the fire aspect. What I can say is that forestry
is a critical component of the overall climate aspect of
things. One of the factoids I learned when I came here, which
is very exciting, is that every year about a million acres of
farmland is converted into forestry land. And that is huge in
terms of carbon sequestration. As we are able to sustainably
intensify ag production, it opens up the opportunity for us to
increase forestry and to increase that opportunity to further
mitigate climate impact.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well certainly it is a great store of carbon,
if you want to play that carbon game there. But, I think that
when we are looking at the inventory of trees we have per acre
in our already overgrown forests, it doesn't just mean more
trees are the answer. It means they have to be managed in such
a way that there is the right ratio per acre, et cetera.
Madam Chair, I am over my time, so I will gladly yield
back. Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you. Ms. Schrier of Washington State, you
are next.
Ms. Schrier. First of all, thank you for coming today and
joining us, Dr. Hutchins. I have to tell you, it is very
refreshing to hear from a scientist, so thank you. I appreciate
it.
I also want to say how much I appreciate that we are having
this hearing today, because in the face of climate change and
competition in trade and increasing population growth, it is
more important than ever that we have a strong, functioning,
federally-funded ag research arm in the United States. And I
really appreciate also your comments about adaptation and
carbon sequestration.
I also wanted to share that I am really proud to partner
with Representative Bustos and other Members of this Committee
to introduce H.R. 4714, America Grows Act of 2019 today. This
bill will dedicate a consistent source of funding to ensure our
world-class institutions can continue their work in leading
edge agricultural research uninterrupted.
I also wanted to talk about staffing issues at ARS, and
this time, not just in Kansas. I ultimately don't agree with
the relocation of NIFA and ERS, but I was pleased to read in
your testimony that you have an aggressive hiring strategy, it
sounds like, together with universities in place to address
vacancies in Kansas City.
But, staffing shortages are a pervasive issue affecting
local ARS operations throughout the country, and there are
reports that as of the end of the most recent governmental
shutdown, there were 270 open ARS positions in the Pacific West
region, which includes my State of Washington, and nationwide,
there are reports of 700 vacant positions, which include both
scientific and support staff. And so, there are a multitude of
open and already Congressionally-funded positions nationwide
that are caught up in this HR backlog. In our district, this
includes a tree fruit geneticist position that has been open
since this past February, as well as a chemical ecologist
position that served both the tree fruit and potato farms, and
has been open since December of 2017 at the Temperate Tree
Fruit and Vegetable Research Unit laboratory in Wapato,
Washington.
I was wondering if you could update me, how many funded
scientist positions at ARS remain vacant both nationally and
within the Pacific West region?
Dr. Hutchins. That is a great question. First of all--and
thank you for that question. I don't have those specific
numbers in front of me. I would be more than happy to get back
with you on that, but I can address the question more broadly,
if it is okay.
First of all, we recognize that we have had and for several
years actually have had a number of vacancies within ARS, and
we are working diligently now to work on that. Specifically,
trying to rework our HR model so that we have the HR talent and
capability to do that, and we are bringing on contractors and
dispersing, if you will, some of that HR talent outside of
Washington where we have a hard time retaining HR
professionals.
Having said that, I did meet personally with the President
of Washington State University, as well the Dean, on these
topics, and assured them that we were prioritizing and focused
in that area, the Wenatchee system and so forth, the ARS
partnership we have with Washington is perhaps the strongest we
have in the country, and so, we are very committed to that.
One of the positions they asked about specifically that I
can update is a plant pathology position. We have interviewed--
we had 40 applicants. We have four finalists. We are
interviewing next week, and we expect to bring that person on
hopefully by--whoever the winning candidate is by the end of
the year.
The government hiring process is a fairly lengthy process,
and so we are working and navigating through that as best we
can. But, we are committed to filling those positions, and in
fact, as I have been working with my leadership team on this,
we have identified a number of what I refer to as top ten
priorities, operational priorities, not so much strategic. And
the one for ARS really is to develop and execute that hiring
strategy so we fill these positions. So, thank you for asking
that question.
Ms. Schrier. I very much appreciate that, and am happy to
know that you are working closely with WSU. Do you have any
sense of how many funded scientist positions have been cleared?
We know about that one in 2019 to be filled.
Dr. Hutchins. To my understanding--and again, I would want
to get back to you because I want to make sure I don't mislead
you or give you incorrect information. There are a number of
positions that have been approved to fill, and we are working
through that process. Again, these positions, these highly
technical positions, we work through a process of not just the
candidates, but through seminars and interviews and things like
that. It is very similar to hiring a faculty member at
Washington State. It is not a quick process, but we are
committed to doing it and doing it as quickly as we can.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you. I appreciate that.
And just with the rest of my time, I meet regularly with
farmers and with Washington State University researchers, and
they are deeply missing these partnerships. I look at it as my
job in a non-farm bill year to be the best supporter of our
farmers that I can possibly be, and so, going to bat for them
and getting the researchers that they need to help our farmers
succeed and adapt to climate change, grow sustainable, increase
their yields, and sequester carbon would be my dream. Thank you
for working to fill these positions.
Dr. Hutchins. We are in that together.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you. At this time, my good friend, Mr.
Davis of Illinois, you have 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, and also to
the Ranking Member Mr. Dunn for your leadership on this
Committee. I appreciate it and my colleague, Ms. Schrier's
comments on carbon sequestration. I would welcome you to come
to my district where we have a carbon sequestration project
that is funded in conjunction with the Department of Energy,
and also Richland Community College and a public-private
partnership with Archer Daniels Midland, and also at the
University of Illinois, which is very crucial to the ag
research title in this that we are talking about in this
hearing. We have a Carbon Sequestration Center of Excellence
where we actually--I got a chance to hold the Mt. Simon
sandstone where carbon is sequestered. It is just a great
educational experience. I invite you out anytime, and I will
have my staff reach out to yours. But thank you.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Mr. Davis. Dr. Hutchins, thank you for coming here today,
and I had a quick question on cooperative extension. I believe
in my rural district that includes a land-grant university and
three other public universities, four private universities that
our cooperative extension service is one our nation's greatest
resources. It is unfortunate, though, that many states across
the country extension has seen significant budget cuts that
have really hampered its ability to assist farmers and
ranchers.
In recent years, Congress has given extension some modest
increases, but in your opinion, should we be doing more?
Dr. Hutchins. Thank you for the question. Extension is
really a hallmark, in many ways, of the success that U.S.
agriculture has had. The tripartite mission of the land-grant
universities of research, teaching, and extension are all three
critical.
In a general sense, I would love to see us expand on the
extension model. I have had many great friends at the
University of Illinois as extension specialists, and I know
that that particular system has had some declines in terms of
specialists because of funding and the rest of it, but yet
still does a great job of serving its customers. I would love
to see us build up. And what we should be doing at the same
time, just as any situation, is we should be exploring as
things have changed, as we become more digitally oriented, and
these kinds of things, can we approach extension in a different
way? Can we ensure that we are delivering that information?
The land-grant colleges, through their education mission,
are doing a great job of developing some really tech savvy
individuals, and so precision agriculture, as an example, or
digital farming, is going to be tremendous. It is already
there, but it is going to expand exponentially. To have people
that have the ability and are not afraid of those kinds of
technologies, if you want to think of it that way, and really
embrace them and experiment with them and have extension there
to work with them to make sure that they know the newest and
the latest, and build a science into their practice is
tremendous.
Mr. Davis. Is there anything that you believe your research
agencies at USDA can do to more effectively partner with them
to save resources and still get a better product?
Dr. Hutchins. Well, there are a number of things that we
could do, and we will explore that more completely. But
specifically, what we would do is, first, to make sure that we
focus on a couple and several key themes that we work with
across agriculture. I have already mentioned a couple in terms
of sustainable intensification and an ag climate adaptation.
But the opportunity to ensure that the four agencies of the REE
mission area are working together and developing a common set
of practices, and then working specifically to deliver those to
the farmer, and working hand in hand.
As I alluded to earlier, one of the great things about
agriculture is every farm is a unique scenario. And so, every
farmer has the opportunity to do some experimentation, and to
understand how these technologies best fit with them, without--
pardon the pun--betting the farm on any particular new
technology or any particular new area. I think there is
tremendous opportunity there for us to improve the delivery of
tools, and we will certainly explore that.
Mr. Davis. Well thank you.
Real quick on another subject. In regard to the Specialty
Crop Research Initiative and the Citrus Disease Research and
Extension Program, it is one of the few programs that does not
give the Secretary the authority to waive the match
requirement. I know that we in a bipartisan way addressed some
of these issues in the past Congress to allow that to happen.
We secured that language in the recent CR that gives you that
waiver authority. I am hopeful that this language will continue
until we can correct it in the next farm bill. But if this
language continues through the next grant cycle for the SCRI
and the citrus program, how do you anticipate USDA will
implement that waiver and implementation?
Dr. Hutchins. Thank you for the question.
Certainly we heard from a number of stakeholders about the
matching scenario, as I know you have, Congress has. And so, we
worked as best we could with Congress and everyone to make sure
of two things. There were some grants that were caught up in
kind of the shutdown period, as it were, that we were able to
have released, and then fortunately, thank you very much for
having the, if you would, the legislative fix put into the
recent continuing resolution.
It is our intent in USDA to continue and grant those
waivers and those exceptions, so that with that exception,
important specialty crop research can continue. Their scenario
is one where they don't always have a great pool of matching
fund opportunities, check-off funds, and the like, so it is
very important that that research occur.
Mr. Davis. Well thank you, and I see my time is up.
Madam Chair, thank you. You are doing a great job,
especially compared to the last Chairman of this Subcommittee.
The Chair. That is not hard to do. Thank you for that.
Ms. Pingree of Maine.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank
you so much for being with us here today. I appreciate your
testimony, and I appreciate your communicating with the
Committee.
I have been in strong opposition of the relocation of NIFA
ERS, and I have had the opportunity to be in several
discussions about that, also serving on the Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee and also talking it over with
Secretary Perdue. Many of my concerns about this have been
voiced. And while I totally appreciate Mrs. Hartzler and why
those Members who are having it come to their district should
be very excited, I only look at this right now as bringing a
lot of chaos to a very important Department.
I don't need to go through everything that has already been
said, but the staff vacancies are extremely high and there is
just no way of sugarcoating this. I am glad you have new
applicants, but it is clear that whether it is putting out
grants or the reports, they are being delayed.
I just wanted to mention, when we talk about these 38
reports that are currently known for being delayed, these are
things like consolidation in the dairy industry, food security
among veterans, international agriculture market access. Some
will be delayed and even discontinued, such as price spread,
which calculates the percentage of food dollars that goes to
farmers.
I am just deeply concerned about the delayed reports, about
ones that could be discontinued, about just general chaos. We
had multiple former leaders of NIFA ERS that came before the
Appropriations Committee to talk about how devastating this was
going to be. And while, as I said, much of that has already
been discussed today, I just want to continue to express my
displeasure at this, and my deep concern that this has added
voices to this question: is the Department of Agriculture still
behind serious research, and that is some of what leads us to
these climate change questions.
I may submit some questions for the record, just to make
sure that I can verify some of the numbers about the vacancies
and the other things that you have been mentioning to us,
because I continue to hear that there is still a lot of
uncertainty.
I do appreciate in your testimony you stated that the USDA
has no policy, no practice, no intent to minimize, discredit,
de-emphasize, or otherwise influence the rigorous climate-based
science of any agency, partner, or institution. I am just
really pleased you have come in this room and say climate
change, because often that is just not even said in the midst
of the challenges that we are going through. I appreciate you
saying that you are not minimizing the science and you are
prioritizing it, but I do have to question some of these
numbers around the climate hubs.
I have spent a lot of time both visiting climate hubs and
looking into the numbers, and I just want to quote a few for
the Committee's benefit. In 2016, $1.2 billion was devoted to
climate hubs within the Department. This is aggregated from
several different departments. There is no line item fund. And
in 2019, the estimate is $512 million. That is cut in half. The
bulk of that funding comes from the Department of Forestry, and
most of it goes to forest resilience. And I am a forested
state. I care deeply about that, but if you take out the
forestry money, in 2016, $11 million went to the climate hubs
and in 2019, it is $9.8 million. Whether it is .3 or point
almost nothing, infinitesimal, that is not a lot of money
devoted to climate change, climate resilience, helping our
farmers prepare for this, things that are already happening to
them, extreme weather, better ways to sequester carbon in the
soil.
I meet with farmers and scientists all the time who are
hungry for information, support, technical assistance, and
there is no way to sugarcoat it. The Department is falling down
on this, and the research isn't getting done. It is not getting
out to the farmers. And while, you may say we are not
neglecting it, I do not think it could possibly be seen as a
priority with these minor funding figures, and frankly, a very
difficult journey to even find what reports have been produced,
where they are on a website, how they are available.
I am going to give you my minute to answer me, but I also
would like to see in writing what climate reports have been put
out, how are they being made accessible, and how are you
reaching out to farmers to get this technical assistance they
need?
Dr. Hutchins. Thank you for the questions.
First of all, I would just reiterate that the Department is
doing a lot more with respect to climate than simply the
climate hubs. The climate hubs was a great jumpstart and it is
a great system, and I have nothing but positive things to say
about it. But I don't want to diminish the fact that this
mission area in particular and other mission areas are doing a
tremendous amount of work in support of and in partnership and
in addition to those climate hubs. The resources that are being
dedicated to this are much higher than that number that you
stated. We would be happy to share that in greater detail.
[The information referred to is located on p. 35.]
Dr. Hutchins. If you want to see the kinds of output that
are coming from this, if you just, for example, go to Google
Scholar and put in NIFA and climate, you will get over 4,000
reports and 4,000 hits of things that have happened just since
2016. So, there is a lot of work out there.
Now, that kind of information, as I indicated earlier, is
best transmitted person to person. I know that you would
appreciate that. Person to person, extension to farm, and so
forth. But we are--there is no attempt or no effort whatsoever
to diminish that, and we are aggressively pursuing the
research, but also the use of the research for practical
improvement.
Ms. Pingree. I apologize because I am completely out of
time, but I will follow up with you and will be happy to see
some sort of written document that shows what many of these
reports are. I completely agree with you. Being able to deliver
that information farmer to farmer is important, but I also hear
about huge staff vacancies in the cooperative extension service
and NRCS, and many of the vehicles where this would be
delivered, it also belongs on the website in a comprehensive
way. Farmers are searching the web just like everybody else,
and they shouldn't have to go to Google. We have the USDA. This
should be readily available information for them.
I really apologize. I am a minute over, but I will
personally contact you and give you much more time to follow up
with me directly. Thank you for being here today, and thank
you, Madam Chair, for indulging me in my extra minute.
The Chair. Thank you. Mr. Comer?
Mr. Comer. Yes. Dr. Hutchins, I am going to begin my
questioning talking about hemp. Hemp is something that I have
worked very hard on over the past 5 years, and something that
has become a major crop in Kentucky now.
In August, EPA announced they are working on approving ten
pesticide applications for industrial hemp, in hopes of getting
them through the approval process before the next growing
season. My question is, has USDA been involved with the EPA in
conversations during this process?
Dr. Hutchins. Thank you, sir, for the question. Actually,
NIFA has funded the IR-4 program, and it includes hemp. And so,
they have conducted or they are in the process of conducting
studies to incorporate hemp within its priorities for IR-4,
which is considered a specialty minor crop. At this point it is
an unique crop. There are five projects to deal with residues,
and five deal with efficacy associated with pesticide use, and
appropriate pesticide use within hemp.
Mr. Comer. Well hopefully we can get those approved before
the next growing season. I know it is a new crop. We are
learning a lot about it, but there are still a lot of questions
and a lot of challenges for our farmers growing it. I wanted to
throw that in there.
Next question, the 2018 Farm Bill under the Critical
Agricultural Materials Act, hemp became an eligible study crop
for certain grants and required USDA to report on the economic
viability of hemp production. Can you provide a status of this?
Dr. Hutchins. Yes, sir, I can. The industrial hemp research
study conducted by the Economic Research Service has developed
a cooperative research agreement with the University of
Kentucky, actually, for the completion of the study, and it is
in the early draft at this point, going through review and peer
review. We will have information on that.
The other thing I would report to you is that NIFA has
solicited applications for national research needs and
extension assessment, and has granted that with Colorado State
and are developing a research conference.
The other thing I would add to that is USDA ourselves, our
mission area developed a symposium within USDA to begin to
teach our own organization about hemp and about the
opportunity, so we brought in experts on pest control, on
agronomics, on genetics, on all those kinds of things, so that
we can start to ramp up our own internal knowledge in this crop
so we can best support our producing community.
Mr. Comer. Great. I represent Murray State University,
which is a non-land-grant university in my district. It has a
great agriculture program. I will put that ag program up
against any land-grant university in America. They have over
1,100 agriculture students at Murray State, and they are
leading the way in reinventing agriculture hemp, and really a
driving force in economic development in western Kentucky with
so many hemp companies that have domiciled in that area because
of the research that Murray State is doing with hemp.
USDA through the NIFA has many different funding
appropriations. One such appropriation is the non-land-grant
college of agriculture capacity building grants for $5 million
annually. Murray State has received seven of these grants over
the past few years. An important fact is that this funding is
competitive among 58 qualifying institutions. Comparatively,
the land-grant university budgets are massive compared to this,
and the 1890 colleges receive $19 million in education grants,
and $58 million in research grants divided among 19
institutions. Yet each year since I have been here, I have
supported this initiative, but the House Agriculture Committee
and/or Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee
must add back in this comparatively small amount of funding for
these non-land-grant colleges since it is left out of the OMB,
USDA President's budget. What can we do to get it in the budget
request, and how can we get more support for this very
important agriculture program at the non-land-grant
universities?
Dr. Hutchins. Well sir, I am not sure I know how to talk
about the advocacy, but what I would say, I will say it more
generally, is while the land-grant system is a tremendous
system, and it has served us extremely well and will continue
to do so, what we are learning today is a lot of the
discoveries, a lot of the things in agriculture in the future
are coming from places that we would not have predicted
previously.
Mr. Comer. Right.
Dr. Hutchins. And the science of agriculture is much
broader than perhaps it was 20 or 30 years ago. The general
notion that we should have more of an abundance mentality on
where some of the discoveries and where some of the research
and so forth can do, we can make a compelling case in that
regard. Or certainly universities like Murray State can do
that.
Mr. Comer. Well, I will conclude by saying that, again,
Murray State is just on the cutting edge of hemp research. More
and more private companies are locating in that area to do
partnerships with Murray State. And I just think that if we
look at our budget that we appropriate for the land-grant
universities, it would be okay to reevaluate some of the work
and have a little bit more accountability from some of the
land-grant universities, and see if they are actually providing
a good return on the investment. Because I know that Murray
State and some other non-land-grant universities are really
making a difference in agriculture today. And the discrepancy
in funding that they get compared to the land-grants is really
mind boggling.
But thank you for being here today. I look forward to
working with you in the future.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Thank you. Mr. Carbajal?
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Under Secretary
Hutchins, thank you for coming here today.
I must say, I am extremely pleased to hear you being true
to your science background and acknowledge climate change and
the challenges that agriculture is enduring as a result of
weather changing.
California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo,
also known as Cal Poly SLO, located in my district, is home to
one of the nation's leading agricultural programs. I recently
had the pleasure of visiting it, visiting the Cal Poly College
of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Science, where nearly
6,000 acres of agriculture production, processing, and research
land and facilities are available to students. During my visit,
I spoke with their staff and faculty, and toured a number of
centers of excellence. These centers are able to continue their
impressive work in part due to the critical partnership with
NIFA and ERS. What stakeholders, if any, were consulted for the
move that NIFA made?
Dr. Hutchins. Thank you, sir, for the question.
Secretary Perdue announced the move of NIFA in August of
2018, and I joined the Department in January of 2019, so I
honestly do not know of that consultation process that
occurred. I do know it was a deliberate process and it was one
that they felt like fulfilled a strong value proposition
overall. But I can't speak personally to the exact consultation
process.
Mr. Carbajal. I would appreciate it if you could get back
to me in writing to share with me what that process entailed,
and if any California stakeholders were included, that would be
helpful to understand.
Dr. Hutchins. Certainly.
[The information referred to is located on p. 35.]
Mr. Carbajal. On another issue, following the legalization
of commercial scale cannabis cultivation in California, there
has been significant development of medium- and large-scale
cannabis cultivation operations within my district in Santa
Barbara County. Many of these operations have replaced
traditional agriculture production, both within greenhouses and
open field settings. In many cases, this cannabis cultivation
is immediately adjacent to continued traditional agriculture
production, and a number of concerns have been raised about
impacts such as the potential taint of adjacent crops, such as
wine grapes, as well as issues related to direct and indirect
pesticide exposure. It is clear that more research is needed to
allow both the cannabis growers and their neighbors in
traditional agriculture production to adjust to this evolving
industry and make sound science-based decisions.
Given the disconnect between Federal and state laws
regarding cannabis, are there ways that USDA can help and
support research in this critical area?
Dr. Hutchins. Thank you for the question.
You have raised several fair technical hypotheses that
could be tested in terms of is there an adverse effect one way
or the other from the proximity of a new crop like this to
that, and those can be tested. We can certainly explore the
possibility of that and try to understand that and those
concerns more directly, and so we can follow up on that.
Mr. Carbajal. I would appreciate it if we could follow up
on this issue together.
Dr. Hutchins. Okay.
[The information referred to is located on p. 35.]
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you so much.
Dr. Hutchins. Thank you.
Mr. Carbajal. Madam Chair, I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you. Mr. Baird, you have the next 5
minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just say to
Under Secretary Hutchins, thank you very much for being here.
Purdue University is my alma mater, and it also is within
my district back home. And so, we appreciate the agricultural
community very much. A major share of my district is
agricultural oriented, and certainly Purdue and the research
that is conducted there and the research that is done by the
Agricultural Research Service is extremely important to helping
our producers turn out the kind of crops that we do.
I might just mention to you we are heavy into the harvest
season. We are having yields better than anticipated. We had a
wet spring and so, we have worked through that.
I guess my question is to give you an opportunity to talk
about the relationship between the Agricultural Research
Service and all of the other entities that are the National
Agricultural Statistics Service and all of those, NIFA, and
that relationship with universities, land-grant universities
like Purdue University. I will just give you an opportunity to
comment on that, and in that conversation, if you would relate
your impression of the significance of the cooperative
extension service. We have that all across the United States,
and they do a great job in the education arena. If you would
care to do that, I would appreciate it.
Dr. Hutchins. Thank you, sir. I am happy to do that.
First of all, I am very familiar with Purdue University. My
youngest daughter is a Boilermaker, so I know that institute.
Mr. Baird. Now we are making progress.
Dr. Hutchins. Yes, it is a great institution, and the folks
who are leading it, Dean Plaut and President Daniels and so
forth are fantastic leaders. I really enjoy working with them.
What we have in the United States is a very special
situation. We have a situation where the Federal Government,
through the USDA, and the states, through the land-grants and
the non-land-grants, to the earlier point, all work together
with a common focus on producers and consumers. And it is an
extraordinary system, and it is exemplified within this mission
area where the Agricultural Research Service has scientists and
laboratories embedded within a number of universities where the
entire NIFA organization is really focused on the success of
land-grants and getting the best from them in terms of research
and extension and so forth. And then certainly, the states work
very closely with the National Agricultural Statistics Service,
and the Economic Research Service is really--rounds out just a
fantastic mission area and partnership with that. I rarely see
dissent or disagreements or conflict across that ecosystem of
agriculture research and development, and it is just something
that we should all be very proud of in the United States,
regardless of party or side, in terms of how well it works and
how well it has been supported. I can't say enough about how
important that infrastructure is. I know I have heard Secretary
Perdue say several times that if other industries had been
forethoughtful enough to establish systems like the land-grant
institutions and extension and that kind of built in
progressive approach with progress always being on the front
end, that we would be in a different place in a lot of these
industries that are losing jobs overseas and so forth.
I can't say enough good things about it, and again, it is a
tripartite mission. You had mentioned extension. It is a
critical one, and without that, the teaching and the research
really don't have an outlet. And so, that is why that
particular area is critical. I do think, as I said, as things
change in terms of digital ag and connectivity and all these
kinds of things, and the way farming is going to be not just
now, but the way it is going to be in the next 20 years, the
extension model--the principles are forever, but the model in
terms of how we communicate, how we deliver, will perhaps be
changing or adapting.
Mr. Baird. I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you. Mr. Panetta, you have the last 5
minutes of questioning.
Mr. Panetta. Outstanding. Thank you.
The Chair. Make it good.
Mr. Panetta. I am sure everybody will appreciate that.
Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you, Ranking Member Dunn, and
also, thank you, Deputy Under Secretary Hutchins. I appreciate
you being here and I appreciate the preparation that you have
taken to be here, as well as all of the work that you have been
doing. And yes, the work that you will continue to do. Thank
you very much. I wanted to thank you personally for the meeting
that I had with the Economic Research Service staff to discuss
specialty crop mechanization review. They came to my office
after we called them, and I appreciate that, just to let you
know. But we had a talk about the specialty crop mechanization
review mandated by Section 7610 of the 2018 Farm Bill that I
was a part of, and trying to push them along to get the report.
They were very motivated, I found, after that meeting to do the
report. That gives me confidence and I am sure gives you
confidence in your staff, as it should. It doesn't take me to
tell you that, I am sure.
But, I just wanted to make sure that as we move forward in
that type of report, especially dealing with something that is
so important to my specialty crops out there on the Central
Coast of California, otherwise known as the Salad Bowl of the
world that everybody in this room has heard me say a number of
times. Are you working with members of the specialty crop
industry to ensure that the efforts on this review match up
with the ongoing work to mechanize and automate as we go
forward? Obviously with our specialty crops, it takes--we can't
just get at this point. We don't have the machinery to send it
through, and we rely on people to come to this country, because
no domestic workers will do that to harvest our crops.
Unfortunately with the rhetoric around immigration and the lack
of immigration reform at this point, we don't have that, so we
are turning to mechanization, not to replace labor, but to
replace the lack of labor. Let's make that clear. Obviously, we
want USDA to play a big part in that. And so, I want to make
sure that you coordinate with private industry as much as you
can so that everything matches up when we go forward to have
this kind of report.
Dr. Hutchins. Yes, sir. I certainly support that. Having
spent my first career within the private-sector, I fully
recognize the importance of having the public- and the private-
sector work together in this to solve the biggest challenges
that we have in agriculture, and certainly, labor availability
is one of those challenges.
Mr. Panetta. That is correct. And now, are you working with
not just labor availability, but in regards to the
mechanization report, you were going to work with them on what
type of mechanization and investments are necessary?
Dr. Hutchins. Yes. With the report and the information from
that, we certainly will utilize that information as a way to
kind of steer our direction and do the best that we can with
the resources that we have.
Mr. Panetta. Outstanding. Now, obviously I wanted to show
our appreciation in regards to the announcement yesterday by
NIFA in regards to the 32 grants totaling $14.3 million--excuse
me, 30 grants totaling $24.1 million through the Organic
Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative, OREI, which I am
sure you have heard about today, as well and the Organic
Transitions Program. A couple of organizations in my district
are going to benefit from them: the Organic Farming Research
Foundation, as well as our Agriculture and Land-Based Training
Association, otherwise known as ALBA. They obviously rely on
these grants, and they have taken a few steps because of that
reliance, and some investments that they have already made
because of those grants. And so, they are awaiting those
grants.
Now obviously, there is a delay that you know about when it
comes to those grants that was mentioned, and I was wondering
if you can elaborate a little bit more for the reason for the
delay on those grants?
Dr. Hutchins. Sorry, I don't have the specifics on those
individual grants, but I can certainly come back to you on
that.
[The information referred to is located on p. 36.]
Mr. Panetta. I would appreciate that.
Dr. Hutchins. I am more than happy to do that. What I can
do is follow up, of course, with NIFA. I know that they have
prioritized that area as a high area of interest and focus, and
we certainly are aware of your interests and your stakeholders'
interests. I will commit to do that.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Like I
said, I found the response from you and from the employees
underneath you very good and very responsive, and I hope that
we can continue this type of relationship, especially as you
move forward with the transition to Kansas City, unfortunately,
as I may add, but also knowing that as long as there are people
there that pick up the phone and continue to do the work that
we need them to do, especially when it comes to agriculture
research. There will be appreciation shown by us in Congress,
but also hold you accountable as well.
Dr. Hutchins. Yes, sir, I would expect that.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you. Before we adjourn, I would invite the
Ranking Member, if he would like to, to make any closing
remarks.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to
say thank you to you for calling this hearing. It has been very
enjoyable to have a chance to hear from our experts, and as
always, I enjoy serving with you on this Committee. Thank you
so much.
The Chair. Thank you, Mr. Dunn.
Thank you so much, Dr. Hutchins, for being here with us and
for your testimony and your willingness to answer questions. I
do believe, and as you have seen here, that we all want the
best for the Department of Agriculture. I am grateful for your
willingness to be very transparent with this Committee and talk
about the issues that you have had and your attempts and what
you are doing to create a road forward for the agency and
particularly for the departments that you have oversight over.
I am concerned, and I think the numbers speak for
themselves. ERS has a 65 percent vacancy rate. NIFA has a 76
percent vacancy rate. There are 478 total positions vacant, and
grants will be several months delayed. In that, however, you
have heard from Members on both sides, and I believe you as
well on this--as the Members of this Committee are trying to do
what is right for farmers, fishermen, ranchers, and the people
who rely on the goods and the services that they bring into the
market. We didn't agree with the move, but the Department of
Agriculture, Secretary Perdue has moved forward.
And so, what this Committee is asking for is not only just
a plan from you on how you intend to meet the needs of those
agencies, but also to hear directly from you about how we can
assist and how we can help and make that happen.
I am not sure--and I haven't been able to ascertain from
your answers whether or not this was really a well thought-out
plan, or this was something that came about and you all had to
really put this together and make it work. But be that as it
may, it is what it is. And at this point, I, as the Chair of
this Subcommittee, really offer ourselves to give you as much
support as you need to make sure that the research and the work
that is done by that agency and by those departments really
moves forward expeditiously.
With that invitation to you and your staff to meet with us
as Members and the more than able staff of this Subcommittee,
this hearing--I just want all of the Members to know that under
the Rules of the Committee, the record of today's hearing will
remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional material
and supplementary written responses from the witness to any
questions posed by the Members. There were a lot of questions
that people had, and some information that you as well said
that you would get back to us, and we look forward to that.
At this time, this hearing of the Subcommittee on
Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research stands adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Supplementary Material Submitted by Scott Hutchins, Ph.D., Deputy Under
Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
Insert 1
Ms. Pingree.
I am going to give you my minute to answer me, but I also
would like to see in writing what climate reports have been put
out, how are they being made accessible, and how are you
reaching out to farmers to get this technical assistance they
need?
Dr. Hutchins. Thank you for the questions.
First of all, I would just reiterate that the Department is
doing a lot more with respect to climate than simply the
climate hubs. The climate hubs was a great jumpstart and it is
a great system, and I have nothing but positive things to say
about it. But I don't want to diminish the fact that this
mission area in particular and other mission areas are doing a
tremendous amount of work in support of and in partnership and
in addition to those climate hubs. The resources that are being
dedicated to this are much higher than that number that you
stated. We would be happy to share that in greater detail.
REE conducts or funds hundreds of studies on climate change every
year. That research is disseminated through our Regional Climate Hubs
and other communications channels, which allows for the most relevant
information for producers in a particular area to be more easily
located. Information relating to research on the affects you describe
can be found here: https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/.
Ensuring the latest research gets into the hands of farmers is a
priority. Formal press releases are only one of several forms of
communications. REE agencies use workshops, events, and conferences,
list-serves, newsletters, our website, blogs, webinars, cooperative
extension partnering, land-grant university networks, and social media
to highlight and publicize USDA research on climate variability and
change.
Insert 2
Mr. Carbajal. . . .
California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, also
known as Cal Poly SLO, located in my district, is home to one
of the nation's leading agricultural programs. I recently had
the pleasure of visiting it, visiting the Cal Poly College of
Agriculture, Food and Environmental Science, where nearly 6,000
acres of agriculture production, processing, and research land
and facilities are available to students. During my visit, I
spoke with their staff and faculty, and toured a number of
centers of excellence. These centers are able to continue their
impressive work in part due to the critical partnership with
NIFA and ERS. What stakeholders, if any, were consulted for the
move that NIFA made?
Dr. Hutchins. Thank you, sir, for the question.
Secretary Perdue announced the move of NIFA in August of
2018, and I joined the Department in January of 2019, so I
honestly do not know of that consultation process that
occurred. I do know it was a deliberate process and it was one
that they felt like fulfilled a strong value proposition
overall. But I can't speak personally to the exact consultation
process.
Mr. Carbajal. I would appreciate it if you could get back to
me in writing to share with me what that process entailed, and
if any California stakeholders were included, that would be
helpful to understand.
Dr. Hutchins. Certainly.
Stakeholder engagement was part of the process at the Secretary,
Deputy Secretary and Mission Area levels. Upon the announcement the
Department conducted a call with stakeholders. Stakeholders included
economic and academic organizations and members that represent national
interests, therefore California was included.
Insert 3
Mr. Carbajal. On another issue, following the legalization of
commercial scale cannabis cultivation in California, there has
been significant development of medium- and large-scale
cannabis cultivation operations within my district in Santa
Barbara County. Many of these operations have replaced
traditional agriculture production, both within greenhouses and
open field settings. In many cases, this cannabis cultivation
is immediately adjacent to continued traditional agriculture
production, and a number of concerns have been raised about
impacts such as the potential taint of adjacent crops, such as
wine grapes, as well as issues related to direct and indirect
pesticide exposure. It is clear that more research is needed to
allow both the cannabis growers and their neighbors in
traditional agriculture production to adjust to this evolving
industry and make sound science-based decisions.
Given the disconnect between Federal and state laws regarding
cannabis, are there ways that USDA can help and support
research in this critical area?
Dr. Hutchins. Thank you for the question.
You have raised several fair technical hypotheses that could
be tested in terms of is there an adverse effect one way or the
other from the proximity of a new crop like this to that, and
those can be tested. We can certainly explore the possibility
of that and try to understand that and those concerns more
directly, and so we can follow up on that.
Mr. Carbajal. I would appreciate it if we could follow up on
this issue together.
Dr. Hutchins. Okay.
The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp, but not all forms of cannabis.
Because marijuana production and other activities, including research,
remains subject to the Federal Controlled Substances Act, USDA cannot
fund or otherwise support cannabis research generally, but can only do
so with respect to hemp; i.e., cannabis that is known by USDA to have
tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) levels of .3 percent or lower.
Insert 4
Mr. Panetta. Outstanding. Now, obviously I wanted to show our
appreciation in regards to the announcement yesterday by NIFA
in regards to the 32 grants totaling $14.3 million--excuse me,
30 grants totaling $24.1 million through the Organic
Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative, OREI, which I am
sure you have heard about today, as well and the Organic
Transitions Program. A couple of organizations in my district
are going to benefit from them. The Organic Farming Research
Foundation, as well as our Agriculture and Land-Based Training
Association, otherwise known as ALBA. They obviously rely on
these grants, and they have taken a few steps because of that
reliance, and some investments that they have already made
because of those grants. And so, they are awaiting those
grants.
Now obviously, there is a delay that you know about when it
comes to those grants that was mentioned, and I was wondering
if you can elaborate a little bit more for the reason for the
delay on those grants?
Dr. Hutchins. Sorry, I don't have the specifics on those
individual grants, but I can certainly come back to you on
that.
NIFA is working diligently to complete the administrative review of
Fiscal Year 2019 awards and process the final release of funds. The
release of capacity and competitive annual funds typically occurs 1 to
2 months after the beginning of each fiscal year. The release of funds
this year will be, on average, an additional 2 months later than
previous years. NIFA will prioritize final fund releases and post-award
actions, as needed.
______
Submitted Questions
Response from Scott Hutchins, Ph.D., Deputy Under Secretary for
Research, Education, and Economics Mission, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
Questions Submitted by Hon. Stacey E. Plaskett, a Delegate in Congress
from Virgin Islands
Question 1. As I mentioned in my opening statement, my constituents
in the U.S. Virgin Islands are directly impacted by USDA research
efforts. The University of the Virgin Islands received over $3 million
from NIFA last year, and Dr. Robert Godfrey, the Director of the local
Agricultural Experiment Station, directly told this Subcommittee how
USDA-supported work is helping my farmer and communities deal with
drought and hurricane response.
Unfortunately, your efforts to relocate ERS and NIFA threaten this
work and the work of researchers across this country. As of October 15,
2019, NIFA had 264 vacancies and ERS had 214 vacancies. Your staff
indicated that FY19 funds will not be completely dispersed until March
2020, and FY20 funds will only be dispersed on time if you can meet
your aggressive hiring goals. You are currently rehiring employees who
just retired last month as re-employed annuitants to simply maintain
critical mission functions, and you do not even have permanent office
space secured in Kansas City.
Taking all this into consideration--was this all a part of the
plan? Did Secretary Perdue anticipate missed deadlines, gaps in
service, and major staff shortages when he announced plans to relocate
these agencies?
Answer. At present, ERS and NIFA continue to deliver the same high-
quality work product and p[er]form mission critical functions. Some
degree of attrition is anticipated with any re-location, which is why
ERS and NIFA have both taken steps to ensure mission continuity
throughout the transition and now as we rehire at these agencies.
Question 2. When did you first become aware that ERS and NIFA would
lose over \1/2\ their staff and would delay the full availability of
FY19 funds until March 2020?
Answer. I was aware of the attrition rate as employees either
accepted or declined their directed reassignment letters. I was
informed by NIFA in the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2020 that some
grantees would see a delay in accessing their funding until March,
while others such as the 1890s, 1994s, and nonprofit institutions would
be prioritized and have access to their funding potentially earlier
than would be typical.
Question 3. I sent Secretary Perdue a letter requesting a plan that
would prevent gaps in service. His response was less than satisfactory,
only saying the agencies would ``ramp up hiring'' with nearly ``100
positions and job announcements in the hiring pipeline.'' There are 478
total vacancies. What is your specific, detailed plan for how these
agencies will reach their appropriated staffing levels with clear
deadlines?
Answer. NIFA and ERS are diligently focused on hiring for vacant
positions in both the National Capitol Region (NCR) and Kansas City
(KC). As of January 15, 2020, NIFA has 79 total recruitments in process
and ERS has 92 total recruitments in process. Both Agencies plan to
continue hiring at an expedited pace. NIFA has received an average of
78 applications and ERS received an average of 46 applications for each
position posted.
In addition to full time employees, NIFA and ERS have leveraged
multiple short-term resources to assist in mission delivery. Those
resources include re-employed annuitants, employee extensions for
mission critical work, employee details from elsewhere in the
Department and short-term contractor support.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
Question 1. I am concerned that program delays will impact the
operations of key stakeholders such as 1890 institutions and 1994
Tribal colleges. In the hearing, it was noted that FY19 funding from
NIFA will not be fully available to grantees until March 2020. What is
the anticipated delay for subgrantees who are awaiting funds?
Answer. NIFA's target is to have all FY 2019 annual funding
released by March 2020. It is not within NIFA's purview to control,
dictate or administer funds to sub-grantees.
Question 2. How is USDA prioritizing funding availability? Will
priority be given to groups who will face financial challenges due to
this delay?
Answer. Priority has been given to 1890s, 1994s, and nonprofit
organizations. Additionally, NIFA has communicated with stakeholders
that it will work with stakeholders to re-prioritize programs and
projects based on critical stakeholder needs.
Question 3. What outreach has USDA done to stakeholders who will be
impacted by these emerging gaps in service, particularly stakeholders
who will be most severely impacted like nonprofits, 1890 institutions,
and 1994 Tribal colleges?
Answer. NIFA has been in constant communication with these
organizations as well as groups such as APLU to keep them apprised of
the status of their access to funds.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Anthony Brindisi, a Representative in
Congress from New York
Question 1. Under Secretary Hutchins--I appreciate your comments
about reexamining agency processes and streamlining regulatory burdens
in your grant-making processes. Going forward, how does NIFA anticipate
it will manage the next cycle (or two) of proposals, with so few staff
left to administer the process? In Fiscal Year 2019 and Fiscal Year
2020 Congress has worked hard to increase funding for AFRI, as funding
for agriculture research has lagged far behind the other sciences--and
I'm very concerned that just at the time that we're starting to see
real growth in the agency's resources, NIFA won't be adequately staffed
to set priorities, administer programs, and provide the guidance and
oversight that our land-grant universities need to develop their
research programs.
Answer. NIFA has been holding panels for FY20 as well as AFRI since
the start of the fiscal year. At this point in time NIFA is not
anticipating delays in administering grant programs this year.
Question 2. Under Secretary Hutchins--The continuing resolution we
passed at the end of September has a provision in it that gives the
Secretary authority to waive the matching requirement of the Specialty
Crop Research Initiative. I'm disappointed that USDA has interpreted
that provision to expire on November 21, but I've been working with my
colleagues here and on the Appropriations Committee to ensure that that
waiver provision is extended through the rest of FY20 and beyond. A 100
percent match is very difficult threshold for the smaller, very diverse
specialty crop industries in New York to meet, which is why Cornell
University pulled several projects that had advanced through the pre-
proposal stage from consideration. These are very important projects--
addressing downy mildew control in horticultural crops, post-harvest
storage improvements for apples, and berry production methods, among
others--that will not be considered in this round of funding because of
the higher matching requirement. Going forward, how will NIFA work with
specialty crop stakeholders to ensure that the SCRI does not
disadvantage small--but essential--specialty crop industries in New
York and the Northeast?
Answer. On January 15, 2020, the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture informed SCRI applicants that for FY 2020, in accordance
with General Provision 762 of the Further Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2020 (Pub. L. 116-94), NIFA will waive the match requirement for
recipients of grants under SCRI. This provision also applies to the
Emergency Citrus Disease Research and Extension (ECDRE) program. This
means that no matching funds will be required of FY 2020 applicants or
awardees, and applicants will not need to submit a waiver request with
their application. The deadline for SCRI full applications remains the
same of March 13, 2020.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Kim Schrier, a Representative in Congress
from Washington
Question 1. How many funded scientist positions at ARS remain
vacant, both nationally and in the Pacific West region?
Answer. 399 vacant Staff Years in ARS, 85 vacant Staff Years in
Pacific West Area.
Question 2. What is USDA's plan to fill these positions, and under
what timeline?
Answer. Our goal is to fill as many as possible by the end of the
fiscal year (September 30, 2020). We are planning to use internal
resources and contractor support to reduce our hiring backlog.
Question 3. What is USDA's long-term plan to ensure we have
scientists/leaders in place for consistent research?
Answer. Once we reduce the hiring back log, we will be in a
position to fill vacancies due to attrition in a timely manner. We are
also expanding resources to handle the specialized recruitment
requirements for scientists.
Question 4. What is the process to expedite the hiring of the
leadership positions in Washington State?
Answer. ARS recently had two leadership vacancies in Pullman, WA.
One position has been filled in the Sustainable Agroecosystems Research
Unit. The other position will be re-advertised as the initial interview
panel did not identify a suitable candidate. In general, once a vacancy
occurs, individual research units submit their vacancies to the Area
Office for approval. Once approved, the recruitment work commences. We
recently expanded our recruitment capacity by providing specialized
training to contractors so that they can more efficiently assist with
scientific recruitments.
Question 5. What is your process for ensuring that ARS stakeholders
are kept up to date as it relates the filling of these vacant
positions?
Answer. The Area Director in Albany, CA regularly keeps
stakeholders up to date. Additionally, many of the National Program
Leaders in ARS often communicate with stakeholders regarding the status
of vacancies. Vacant position postings are publicly available on
USAJobs.gov.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Chellie Pingree, a Representative in
Congress from Maine
Question 1. A recent Politico article reported that at least 38 ERS
reports will be delayed and possibly even discontinued. Is that
accurate? How many ERS reports will be limited, delayed, or
discontinued? Please explain in detail what your plans are to ensure
that there are no delays of reports or grants under ERS and NIFA's
purview.
Answer. The reports referenced represent a snapshot of the entire
ERS product pipeline as of August 2019. As is standard ERS practice,
many of those items remain at various stages in the pipeline with no
set date for publication. Several items on that snapshot have been
published, including the Examination of Veterans Diet Quality, and ERS
has published all calendared reports on time. ERS has published all
calendared work products on schedule.
Question 2. Please provide a detailed report on what the staffing
levels are at NIFA and ERS. Please include monthly totals for how many
NIFA and ERS employees are based in Washington, D.C. for each month of
2019, as well as monthly totals for how many NIFA and ERS employees are
based in Kansas City for each month of 2019. Given the incredible
reduction in agency staff capacity, what is USDA's specific hiring plan
for all the positions that have been vacated due to the relocation?
Answer. As of the pay period ending January 4, 2020, NIFA has 102
full time employees (FTEs) with 18 based in D.C. and 84 based in Kansas
City (KC). Below is data for each pay period after the direct
reassignment report date for employees relocating to KC:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIFA Positions Occupied
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay Period Ending Date Total D.C. KC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.12.19 88 18 70
10.26.19 92 18 74
11.9.19 95 18 77
11.23.19 93 18 75
12.7.19 92 18 74
12.21.19 102 18 84
1.4.20 102 18 84
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIFA is diligently focused on hiring for vacant positions in both
D.C. and KC. As of January 15, 2020, NIFA has 79 total recruitments in
process and plans to continue hiring at an expedited pace. NIFA has
received an average of 78 applications for each position posted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERS Positions Occupied
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay Period Ending Date Total D.C. KC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.12.19 118 69 49
10.26.19 122 69 53
11.9.19 122 69 53
11.23.19 125 68 57
12.7.19 123 68 55
12.21.19 123 68 55
1.4.20 123 68 55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERS is diligently focused on hiring for vacant positions in both
D.C. and KC. As of January 15, 2020, ERS has 111 total recruitments in
process and plans to continue hiring at an expedited pace. ERS has
received an average of 46 applications for each position posted.
In addition to FTEs, NIFA and ERS have leveraged multiple short-
term resources to assist in mission delivery. Those resources include
re-employed annuitants, employee extensions for mission critical work,
employee details from elsewhere in the Department and contractors.
Question 3. Do you believe that USDA needs $25 million of taxpayer
money for a relocation that has already happened? If yes, why? Please
provide specific breakdown of what USDA needs additional funding for.
Answer. NIFA and ERS will operate under their appropriation for
Fiscal Year 2020.
Question Submitted by Hon. Jimmy Panetta, a Representative in Congress
from California
Question. Background: There is a concern in the agriculture
research community about the public-private partnerships required
matching funds. Currently, the Organic Research and Extension
Initiative (OREI) requires 100% matching of private funds for all
projects that benefit a single commodity. Exemptions exists for
projects that will benefit the organic industry as a whole, span across
multiple crop study systems, or study a minor commodity. Organic
stakeholders have interpreted these qualifications to include organic
production, since ``organic'' itself is considered a minor commodity.
However, in the official wording (below), this is not made explicit and
potentially left up for interpretation by the program officer.
Official wording from the RFA: The Agriculture Improvement Act of
2018 (H.R. 2) removed the matching requirements for some NIFA
competitive grants imposed by the Agricultural Act of 2014. Therefore,
there are changes to the matching requirements for some funds awarded
in 2019.
For FY 2019, for the OREI program, if a grant provides a particular
benefit to a specific agricultural commodity, the grant recipient is
required to match the USDA funds awarded on a dollar-for-dollar basis
from non-Federal sources with cash and/or in-kind contributions. (See
Part IV, B., 6. for details.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: The Fiscal Year 2020 Request for Applications is
retained in Committee file and available at: https://nifa.usda.gov/
sites/default/files/rfa/FY2020-OAREI-RFA-20191206.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIFA may waive the matching funds requirement for a grant if NIFA
determines that: (1) the results of the project, while of particular
benefit to a specific agricultural commodity, are likely to be
applicable to agricultural commodities generally; or (2) the project
involves a minor commodity, the project deals with scientifically
important research, and the grant recipient is unable to satisfy the
matching funds requirement.
Question: The current private funding matching requirements allow
for exemptions for studies related to a minor commodity. Organic is
considered a commodity class and projects funded under OREI have
received waivers for the matching requirements. Can you confirm that
organic crops are considered a minor commodity and therefore exempt
from the matching requirements?
Answer. The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 removed the
matching requirements for some National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA) competitive grants imposed by the Agricultural Act
of 2014. Therefore, there are changes to the matching requirements for
some funds awarded in 2019, and thereafter. In FY 2020, for the Organic
Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) program, if a
grant provides a particular benefit to a specific agricultural
commodity, the grant recipient is required to match the USDA funds
awarded on a dollar-for-dollar basis from non-Federal sources with cash
and/or in-kind contributions. There isn't an exemption for a minor
commodity, however, NIFA may waive the matching funds requirement for
an OREI grant if NIFA determines that: (1) the results of the project,
while of particular benefit to a specific agricultural commodity, are
likely to be applicable to agricultural commodities generally; or (2)
the project involves a minor commodity, the project deals with
scientifically important research, and the grant recipient is unable to
satisfy the matching funds requirement. Should applicants pursue the
number two waiver, they need to submit a justification at the time of
application on how they meet the waiver request by defining why they
are a minor commodity, proving the scientific importance of the
proposed project, and showing an inability to satisfy the match
requirement. The deadline for FY 2020 OREI applications is January 30,
2020.
Question Submitted by Hon. Neal P. Dunn, a Representative in Congress
from Florida
Question. There continues to be deceiving rhetoric describing the
relocation as a way to gut the agricultural research being done by
these agencies. What is your long-term vision for these agencies and
how this relocation will ultimately be beneficial for agricultural
research?
Answer. The relocation of ERS and NIFA will strengthen the agencies
in the long-term. The relocation has and will continue to allow us to
hire and retain highly qualified staff and bring Federal resources
closer to stakeholders. Additionally, the relocation will allow the
agencies an opportunity to evaluate their business processes and become
more effective, efficient, and responsive to stakeholders.
Question Submitted by Hon. K. Michael Conaway, a Representative in
Congress from Texas
Question. Sections 7612 and 7613 of the 2018 Farm Bill direct USDA
to streamline reporting requirements in the annual Plan of Work report
and the Time and Effort reports. The farm bill language specifically
directs USDA to work with land-grant university stakeholders to get
this done. What is the status of implementing these two sections?
Please describe your coordination efforts with land-grant stakeholders
to implement these two sections.
Answer. Regarding Section 7612, the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture's (NIFA) Plan of Work (POW) and REEport integration project
has been working to implement the 2015 Plan of Work Panel of Experts
recommendations to consolidate the Plan of Work (POW) system into
REEport. NIFA plans to continue to work together with land-grant
university (LGU) partners to find innovative solutions for meeting the
legislative requirements of Agricultural Research, Education, and
Extension Reform Act, improve data quality, and lessen reporting
burden.
Regarding Section 7613, NIFA has met with the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and held their first stakeholder input session at the
annual National Extension and Research Administrative Officers
Conference in April 2019, attended by over 200 land-grant university
representatives. NIFA plans on holding additional stakeholder input
sessions, and then will develop draft guidance. After review by OMB,
NIFA will gather stakeholder input on the draft guidance before making
the guidance final.
Question Submitted by Hon. Mike Bost, a Representative in Congress from
Illinois
Question. The 2018 Farm Bill expanded the Farm and Rancher Stress
Assistance Network program, which is a vital tool to ensure our
producers are getting the help they need. As the Ranking Member of the
Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee for the
Veterans Affairs Committee, I've worked firsthand to reduce veterans'
suicide, including veteran farmers. Given the state of the ag economy,
difficult planting conditions, and stress about the markets, we need to
make sure that our producers are being looked after. What is the status
of the implementation of this program? Other than FRSAN, what other
ways does your mission area provide mental health resources to
America's farmers and ranchers?
Answer. On October 22, 2019, USDA's National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA) announced $1.92 million for four competitive grants
supporting projects to provide stress assistance programs to
individuals engaged in farming, ranching, and other agriculture-related
occupations. These Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network (FRSAN)
program projects were awarded to four regional entities to help launch
FRSAN. The long-term expectation is that agriculture producers and
their families will have greater opportunities to find help in their
communities and states through outreach and the Cooperative Extension
System. The FY 2020 FRSAN Request for Applications should be published
within the next few months.
USDA has tools and options within its programs that county offices
can leverage to help a producer achieve financial success on their
farm. In addition, USDA has access to resources and referral services
as a result of collaborations with the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services' (HHS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA). The following efforts at USDA are currently dedicated to
supporting the behavioral and mental health needs of individuals in the
agricultural sector:
AgrAbility program building service capacity on national,
regional, state, and local levels through;
Direct Assistance aimed at accommodating disabilities
in individuals who engage in farming and farm-related
occupations;
Farm Safety Education;
Marketing direct to public initiatives in AgrAbility-
related education, and assistance;
Networking to increase sharing of resources and
sustainability of projects past NIFA funding. The National
AgrAbility Project has been involved with Mental Health
First Aid (MHFA) for several years and has a trained
instructor involved in conducting programs. The MHFA
training has been offered at the National AgrAbility
Training Workshops in both 2018 and 2019.
In addition to FRSAN, NIFA has the following specific programs that
have components that may increase understanding of suicide risk, and
thus promote its prevention and greater overall behavioral health
include:
Rural Health and Safety Education (RHSE) research shows that
suicide is the leading cause of death among people with
substance use disorders (SUDs). RHSE is a competitive grant
program that seeks to address the needs of rural Americans by
providing individual and family health education programs. Per
Congressional guidance in FYs 2017-2019, proposals emphasized
the prevention and/or reduction of opioid misuse and abuse.
Agricultural Risk Management Education Program (ARME) is a
competitive grant program that educates agricultural producers
on the full range of risk management strategies. It provides
funding for result- and outcome-based risk management education
projects to help producers learn and use tools and approaches
that can reduce the adverse effects of the uncertainties of
weather, yields, prices, credit, government policies, global
markets, and other factors including human resources and legal
issues.
NIFA and the Farm Service Agency (FSA) have an interagency
agreement in which they are working on the development of
training, resources, and outreach materials that support USDA
FSA field employees that work with farmers and ranchers. FSA's
priority is to adequately support field employees with training
on how to serve stressed customers by supporting them with
their mental and physical health. FSA has more than 10,000
employees who engage with producers daily through farm and
office visits in more than 2,000 county offices throughout the
United States.