[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PUTTING FOOD ON THE TABLE:
A REVIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE
OF AGRICULTURE RESEARCH
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
November 2, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-35
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
27-674PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BILL POSEY, Florida ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky AMI BERA, California
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia JERRY MCNERNEY, California
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana PAUL TONKO, New York
DRAIN LaHOOD, Illinois BILL FOSTER, Illinois
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida MARK TAKANO, California
JIM BANKS, Indiana COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
------
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
HON. BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana AMI BERA, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
JIM BANKS, Indiana EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
November 2, 2017
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Barbara Comstock, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 4
Written Statement............................................ 5
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 9
Written Statement............................................ 11
Witnesses:
Dr. Daniel Gerstein, Senior Policy Researcher, RAND Corporation
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
Dr. Stephen Higgs, Associate Vice President for Research and
Director, Biosecurity Research Institute, Kansas State
University
Oral Statement............................................... 31
Written Statement............................................ 33
Dr. Stephen P. Moose, Denton and Elizabeth Alexander Professor,
Maize Breeding and Genetics, Department of Crop Sciences,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Oral Statement............................................... 42
Written Statement............................................ 44
Dr. Elizabeth Wagstrom, Chief Veterinarian, National Pork
Producers Council
Oral Statement............................................... 53
Written Statement............................................ 55
Discussion....................................................... 61
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Daniel Gerstein, senior policy researcher, RAND Corporation.. 78
Dr. Stephen Higgs, Associate Vice President for Research And
Director, Biosecurity Research Institute, Kansas State
University..................................................... 84
Dr. Stephen P. Moose, Denton and Elizabeth Alexander Professor,
Maize Breeding And Genetics, Department of Crop Sciences,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign..................... 91
Dr. Elizabeth Wagstrom, Chief Veterinarian, National Pork
Producers Council.............................................. 97
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Report submitted by Representative Roger W. Marshall, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 104
PUTTING FOOD ON THE TABLE:
A REVIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE
OF AGRICULTURE RESEARCH
----------
Thursday, November 2, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barbara
Comstock [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Committee at any time.
Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing titled
''Putting Food on the Table: A Review of the Importance of
Agriculture Research.'' I now recognize myself for five minutes
for an opening statement.
The purpose of today's hearing is to examine federal
agriculture research including the scope, importance, value,
and impact of such research. Agriculture research is a broad
term that can include the study of diseases that threaten the
nation's animal agriculture industry and public health. It can
also refer to research to increase and improve crop and yield
production through advancements in science and technology. In
other words, we rely on the research to help protect the Nation
from disasters, and we rely on it to help prepare us for the
future, one in which agriculture research will benefit from
developments in precision and automated technologies such
robotics and artificial intelligence.
In the Commonwealth of Virginia, agriculture research is an
important topic for my constituents and for me because
agriculture is such a critical industry. According to the
Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,
agriculture is Virginia's largest industry by far with nothing
else coming a close second. People are actually surprised that
Virginia--for those of us in northern Virginia, we might be a
little surprised that agriculture still holds as the top
industry. The industry has an economic impact of $70 billion
annually and provides more than 334,000 jobs in the
Commonwealth.
In the 10th Congressional District, agriculture's key role
is felt far and wide, from the rows upon rows of apple and
peach orchards in the western counties to the ever-growing wine
industry, craft breweries and distilleries. We also have dairy
and cattle farms too.
Our distinguished panel today represents a variety of
perspectives to explain the value and impacts of agriculture
research. We will hear about the food security and economic and
national security implications of a natural disaster or a
terrorist attack on our crops and livestock. We will also hear
about industry research efforts and practices, and an academic
perspective on innovative efforts to more efficiently increase
and improve crop yields.
These are important considerations because agriculture
research impacts all of us. As an example, one need only go
back to the avian flu outbreak--which I'm not sure if I might
be having a flu outbreak here--of 2014 and 2015, which resulted
in almost $900 million in expenses to federal and state
governments, the slaughter of more than 50 million birds, and
an estimated cost to the U.S. economy in excess of $3 billion.
I look forward to hearing about federal and other
stakeholder agriculture research efforts from our witnesses
today. I hope to understand how the research is coordinated and
complemented to protect America's food sources so that we may
all continue to safely and abundantly put food on our tables
for the foreseeable future.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Comstock follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. I now recognize the Ranking Member,
the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Chairwoman Comstock, for holding
this hearing and the witnesses for being here today. Certainly
in my State of Illinois, agriculture is huge, so there's no
question that people know that.
Often, the major research issues that we talk about here on
the Research and Technology Subcommittee are not the subjects
of everyday dinner conversation. But today, we are actually
talking about dinner. I was hoping to see some product here for
us this morning, but that's all right.
Putting safe and affordable food on the table is something
many of us take for granted. However, there is an entire
ecosystem of innovation and public-private partnerships that
make it possible for farmers to continue to meet the needs of a
growing population.
Agricultural science is multidisciplinary, spanning fields
from engineering to economics. As Dr. Moose from the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign can attest, UIUC's Crop
Sciences department includes research in statistics, ecology,
environmental sciences, plant biology, horticulture, plant
genetics, plant pathology, and weed science.
Likewise, major discoveries and innovations that assist in
crop production come from unexpected places. For example, new
genetic editing technologies that began in a microbiology
research lab promise major leaps forward for agriculture. In
another example, NASA supported the development of satellite
image refinement software for its research that also helps
agricultural researchers study the effects of population and
climate on crop field acreage.
Agricultural researchers work closely with farmers to help
translate all of this science into practice, while farmers
continue to help define the research agenda for food security.
Research and development is a system of feedback loops, not a
linear path. There's rarely a clean line between basic and
applied research in any field of inquiry, and today's topic is
no exception.
It is important to remember this as we examine the need for
flexible, sustainable federal support for agricultural
research. Both government and private sector investments
support agricultural research. Multiple federal agencies
support efforts to advance our Nation's leadership in
agricultural research. These agencies work in close
collaboration with the agricultural industry. Unfortunately, as
federal budgets are tightened, academic researchers have less
funding to move their science through the development process;
therefore, the private sector supports an increasing share of
agricultural research.
While the private sector has an important role, we must
continue to provide a balance of public and private funding in
order to ensure both a pipeline of basic research and a
research agenda driven by the needs of farmers and the public.
Our lack of dedication to sustainable funding could cost us
global competitiveness in certain areas of agricultural
technology and put our food security at risk within the
lifetime of many of us.
A number of factors can affect the quality, availability,
and safety of the plants and animals that help feed our
families, including extreme weather, pests, and disease. In the
face of emerging infectious diseases and new technological
tools such as genetic editing, we must also be vigilant about
intentional contamination and disruption of our food supply. I
hope there is some discussion today about how researchers and
industry are taking into consideration the agricultural impacts
of a changing climate and growing population, and how those
factors will help shape the research agenda. On the biosecurity
front, which is one focus of this hearing, several of the
today's witnesses will testify about the critical need to
implement sustainable funding policies for the new National Bio
and Agro-defense Facility under construction in Manhattan,
Kansas.
Now is the time to consider a federal strategy to increase
the scale of agricultural research across the relevant
agencies, encourage balanced federal-private sector
partnerships, and ensure that our future agricultural workforce
is equipped with the necessary science and technology skills to
meet the food and biosecurity challenges of today and tomorrow.
Finally, I would like to note that agricultural research
also has applications beyond food security. For example, the
Department of Energy recently awarded UIUC five years of
funding to establish one of four new Bioenergy Research Centers
that will provide a new generation of sustainable bioenergy and
other bio-based products.
I thank all of the witnesses for being here today to share
their expertise, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski, and given my
challenges with my cold and my voice today, I'm going to defer
to Mr. Marshall to be able to introduce our witnesses, which
also include someone from his district, so thank you, Mr.
Marshall, for taking over those duties.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Chairwoman Comstock, and let me
just start by saying thank you to the SST staff who's done a
fabulous job of organizing this. I had no idea how much work it
might be, and you all have been a thrill and an honor to work
with, and to my staff as well. Lauren Orndorff, my science,
space, and technology staff person, has done a great job
organizing the witnesses and so honored to be able to introduce
you all.
First is Dr. Daniel Gerstein, who's the Senior Policy
Director at the RAND Corporation. He's also the Adjunct
Professor at American University in Washington, DC. Previously,
Dr. Gerstein served in the Department of Homeland Security as
Acting Under Secretary and Deputy Under Secretary in the
Science and Technology Directorate. He graduated from the
United States Military Academy and has a master's degree from
Georgia Tech, the National Defense University and the U.S. Army
Command and General Staff College. He also earned a Ph.D. in
biodefense from George Mason University. Thanks, Dr. Gerstein,
for coming.
And my next witness is our own Dr. Stephen Higgs, who's the
Associate Vice president for Research and Director of the
Biosecurity Research Institute at my alma mater, Kansas State
University, and we both got our purple ties on. Go Cats! This
institution is a unique biocontainment research and education
facility. Dr. Higgs is responsible for oversight, coordination,
and expansion of the Institute's Biosecurity Research and
Education programs. The Institute is located next to the
National Bio and Agro-Defense facility, which we call NBAF back
home, a biosafety level IV facility which is currently under
construction and when completed will make Manhattan, Kansas,
the Silicon Valley of bio and agro-defense. As it becomes
operational, Dr. Higgs' proximity and experience will be
invaluable to bringing that operation online. Previously, Dr.
Higgs served as the President of the American Society of
Tropical Medicine and Hygiene as well as Editor in Chief of
Vector-borne and Zoonotic Diseases. Dr. Higgs earned a bachelor
of science with honors in zoology from the Kings College in
London and his Ph.D. in parasitology from Reading University in
the United Kingdom. Welcome, Dr. Higgs, to Washington, D.C.,
and we look forward to your testimony. So much appreciate the
tour you gave us back home as well.
The next witness is Dr. Stephen P. Moose. He's Denton and
Elizabeth Alexander Professor of Maize Breeding and Genetics in
the Department of Crop Sciences at the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign. His research focuses on understanding how
gene regulatory programs may be modified for crop improvement.
Dr. Moose spent two years as a Project Leader at DeKalb
Genetics Corporation in Monsanto Company using biotechnology to
enhance corn grain nutritional quality. Dr. Moose received a
bachelor's of science degree in biology from Case Western
Reserve University and a Ph.D. in genetics and crop science
from North Carolina State University.
And finally, Dr. Elizabeth Wagstrom is our final witness,
Chief Veterinarian of the National Pork Producers Council.
During her career, Dr. Wagstrom has worked the intersection of
animal and public health including as a practicing
Veterinarian, an Epidemiologist and Public Health Veterinarian,
an industry organization staff member and in academia. Dr.
Wagstrom holds a doctor of veterinary medicine and master's in
preventive medicine degrees from Iowa State University.
And we start with our testimony by recognizing Dr. Gerstein
for five minutes to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY DR. DANIEL GERSTEIN,
SENIOR POLICY RESEARCHER,
RAND CORPORATION
Dr. Gerstein. Well, thank you very much. I'm very pleased
to be here. Good morning, Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking Member
Lipinski, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I
thank you for the opportunity to testify today on federal
research and development for agricultural biodefense.
Since the establishment of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) in 2003, the Department in complete coordination
with the Department of Agriculture has served in a central role
in agricultural biodefense, particularly in research and
development. During my service as Acting Under Secretary and
Deputy Under Secretary of the Science and Technology
Directorate, my duties included oversight and support for U.S.
agricultural biodefense R&D including the work at the Plum
Island Animal Disease Center, or short, Plum Island, several
academic Centers of Excellence related to agricultural
biodefense and tens of millions of dollars annually in research
and development funding.
It is also during this period when DHS led by the S&T
Directorate developed the justification and secured funding for
the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) at Manhattan,
Kansas, as the replacement for the Plum Island facility.
My testimony today will largely draw on these experiences.
In my remarks, I'd like to place federal R&D efforts for
agricultural biodefense in context. To do this, I will develop
several themes.
First, federal agriculture research must be considered
within the global biological threats that span a broad spectrum
from emerging infectious disease to the deliberate use of
biological pathogens. Second, agriculture security is a
national security and economic security issues. Third, U.S.
laws, policies, and regulations are part of a larger
international system of disease monitoring and reporting. And
finally, robust, well-coordinated biodefense R&D is an
essential component of maintaining a healthy and vibrant
agricultural sector.
In the interests of time in my oral remarks, I'll focus on
the fourth theme regarding federal agricultural biodefense R&D,
specifically developing several important areas of emphasis
that should be considered.
The first is, research and R&D solutions must be systems-
oriented. Investments have to be balanced and there are no
silver bullets. A comprehensive system must include threat
awareness, prevention and protection, surveillance and
detection, and response and recovery. Second, good disease
monitoring will be important to continuity of business. Early
detection, rapid response and recovery, and ensuring accurate
communications across all interested governmental and non-
governmental entities is essential. These areas require
appropriate R&D support and funding. Third, cross-sector
collaboration including end-user participation will be vital
for developing preparedness and response capabilities.
Livestock industry and producers, government officials
including state and local animal health officials, the
biopharmaceutical industry and veterinarians, first responders,
and diagnostic laboratories must all collaborate on research
and development to identify solutions that will be essential.
Fourth, opportunities to field-test technologies worldwide
should be identified. Countries with endemic zoonotic diseases
of interest to the United States government and agricultural
sector should be identified and approached to ascertain their
willingness to work as partners for countermeasure and vaccine
trials. Fifth, next-generation zoonotic disease training should
continue to be developed. Education programs that target gaps
in the agricultural biodefense workforce to include in research
and development would be extremely useful. And finally,
consistent funding for agricultural biodefense efforts is
essential. Achieving the level of protection for this area will
require specific investments in research and development in
facilities such as Plum Island and NBAF. It also implies that
state and local communities have the necessary funding to
operate and maintain the labs that are part of the National
Animal Health Laboratory Network. To do otherwise creates
unnecessary risks for a $1 trillion portion of the U.S.
economy.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss federal R&D For the
agriculture biodefense sector, and I look forward to your
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gerstein follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you.
And we'll now recognize Dr. Higgs.
TESTIMONY OF DR. STEPHEN HIGGS,
ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH AND DIRECTOR,
BIOSECURITY RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Higgs. Good morning, Chairman Comstock, Ranking Member
Lipinski, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson and members of
the Subcommittee, my name is Stephen Higgs and I'm the Director
of the Biosecurity Research Institute, the BRI, at Pat Roberts
Hall, Kansas State University. It's a privilege to be here
today.
The BRI's mission is leading through research and education
to protect agriculture and the public from biological threats.
Over 20 different pathogens have been studied at the BRI but
recent studies are focused on agents listed as priorities for
the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF).
The State of Kansas committed $35 million to the NBAF
Transition Fund to support activities aligned with the NBAF
mission. Additional funds have been provided by federal
agencies including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the
Department of Homeland Security, and from stakeholder
industries, notably the National Pork Board.
For the first time since the 1980s, we have conducted
livestock studies with the zoonotic Rift Valley fever virus in
the United States. As I speak today, we are assessing
susceptibility of white-tailed deer to Rift Valley fever virus.
This is an important collaboration between Kansas State
University and the USDA's Arthropod Borne Animal Diseases
Research Unit.
Using currently circulating Japanese encephalitis virus,
another vector-borne zoonotic pathogen, we have infected North
America mosquitoes and domestic swine. The BRI is the first
non-federal U.S. facility ever to be approved to work on
African swine fever and classical swine fever viruses.
To perform NBAF-related agricultural research since 2011
over 250 people have been trained and passed the background
checks required for registration to work with so-called select
agents that are NBAF priorities. Fellowships to train
transboundary animal disease professionals have been supported
by funds from the Department of Homeland Security although we
have unfortunately heard that they lack the funds to support
this important NBAF-related training beyond 2018. I did,
however, meet the deputy administration of USDA's Office of
National Programs to discuss collaborative efforts between the
University and the USDA for NBAF workforce development.
As the first operational land grant university, Kansas
State has 150 years of committed agricultural research, some of
which is described in my written testimony. As I comment more
on NBAF, I am not representing the views of DHS or USDA. NBAF
is not just a replacement for the aging Plum Island. NBAF will
provide a critical new capacity to enhance the Nation's ability
to understand and respond to the world's most dangerous
pathogens. NBAF will enable research with livestock infected
with agents requiring biosafety level IV containment. It's
remarkable to me that other countries have federally funded
laboratories to do such work but the United States does not. As
in other countries, we must have a long-term federal funding
commitment to support not just the operation of NBAF but also
the vitally important research and training that will be
performed there.
In 2015, the bipartisan Blue Ribbon Study Panel on
Biodefense published its national blueprint for biodefense.
Sadly, the most important conclusions were that the U.S. lacked
leadership, a strategic plan and dedicated budget for
biodefense. Last January, two panel members held a hearing at
Kansas State titled Agrodefense: Challenges and Solutions.
Congressman Roger Marshall provided a Congressional
perspective. Interestingly, in the subsequent report, it was
recommended that the DHS and the USDA should develop a business
plan for NBAF. When in Manhattan members met leaders of the
Kansas Intelligence Fusion Center. With expertise on diseases
of plants, animals and people, members of the Center's
biothreat team helped to evaluate many reports related to
biological threats to U.S. citizens and agriculture.
Eighteen years ago, President Wefald of Kansas State
testified before the U.S. Senate's Emerging Threat Subcommittee
to discuss biological weapons, the threats to our agricultural
economy and food supply. With little tangible action since
then, we face a prospect of managing under crisis conditions a
biological event that is spreading out of control from state to
state. These threats go far beyond disrupting our ability of
putting food on the table. They have serious consequences on
employment, trade, and global economy.
And on that note, I thank you for the opportunity to talk.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Higgs follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. We now recognize Dr. Moose.
TESTIMONY OF DR. STEPHEN P. MOOSE,
DENTON AND ELIZABETH ALEXANDER PROFESSOR,
MAIZE BREEDING AND GENETICS,
DEPARTMENT OF CROP SCIENCES,
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
Dr. Moose. Good morning, Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking
Member Lipinski, and other distinguished members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you
putting food on the table.
I come to you today with a very personal commitment to this
topic. My wife and I both grew up on farms. We were brought
together by a state-sponsored fellowship for graduate school at
North Carolina State University. We farmers became scientists.
We have since devoted our lives through both education and
research to bringing science back to the farm.
I will discuss with you three topics today: the government
support of agriculture research, the partnerships among farmers
and scientists and the private sector, and then the value of
agriculture research. Although I'm using examples from my own
personal experience, I'm here to represent the broad enterprise
that is agriculture research.
So looking at the support, Abraham Lincoln sprouted
agriculture research in this country through the creation of
the People's Department, the United States Department of
Agriculture. He also created through the Morrow Act the land
grant universities. From their beginnings, land grant
universities have shared with the federal government and
they're the core of this shared responsibility of agriculture
research. The largest piece of the federal research pie
supports university research through competitive grants, and
these come primarily through the USDA but also the National
Science Foundation and, as Mr. Lipinski mentioned, the
Department of Energy. Federal funding supports a healthy
diversity of small exploratory research to large, multi-
institutional centers. Furthermore, agriculture research is
filled with many interagency partnerships. States and local
communities also partner extensively on technology transfer and
business development through Agriculture Innovation Districts
such as the Research Triangle Park in North Carolina where
universities are often the nucleus for job growth.
Lincoln's vision also considered fundamentally linked
research and education. This year the University of Illinois
celebrates 150 years of teaching farmers to become scientists
and scientists to study the farm. We train the next generation
of science leaders and the workforce.
So let's talk about partnerships. There's a long history of
cooperation with agriculture research. I show in the picture,
it's actually the longest running plant genetics experiment in
the world, which I actually continue, me and my team. This
experiment began in 1896 when a professor went to a local
farmer's field, sampled ears of corn, and then decided to
select for higher or lower grain protein, and the goal for this
was to improve nutrition for animal feed. He did not know that
this experiment would continue annually for the next 120 years,
and as shown in the picture are my graduate students who
completed that 120th cycle of this experiment.
In addition to the valuable knowledge we've gained about
plant breeding, the earliest commercial corn hybrids, the
parents, came from this germ plasm. Also, high-oil corn, which
is a value-added trait that's been marketed since the 1990s,
came from this experiment. So you just really don't know when
this research will pay off. During the last 15 years, the
National Science Foundation, the Plant Genome Research program,
the USDA, as well as DuPont Pioneer and Monsanto Company, have
supported this experiment.
So let's talk about the value then of these investments.
Agriculture research generates tremendous long-term benefits to
the U.S. economy. I show in the next slide there where just the
example of corn, average corn yields in the United States. This
tremendous increase has been powered by the compounding
benefits of advances in science that I list there with genome
editing and Big Data now being the emerging fields, if you
will. And so these will drive further enhancements and yield
nutritional quality and environmental resiliency.
Each bushel of corn yields $300 million at the farm gate
and $1 billion to the U.S. consumer. Interestingly, for each of
the technologies I list there, there was a lag period of at
least a decade or more from the time of the initial discovery
to the commercial application, and so one significant value of
agriculture research is to reduce the risks for commercial
adoption.
Finally, the last thing I will say is that there's an
essential value to agriculture research that helps connect
science with society, it connects farmers with science, and
farmers to society, a three-way loop. So only two percent of
our population is now engaged in agriculture. The other 98
percent are interested in food and through research, they're
interested in research, so that value is immense.
So working together, future agriculture research will
continue to put farm and food on the table.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Moose follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. I now recognize Dr. Wagstrom.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ELIZABETH WAGSTROM,
CHIEF VETERINARIAN,
NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL
Dr. Wagstrom. Thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman Comstock,
Ranking Member Lipinski, and members of the Subcommittee. I'm
Liz Wagstrom, the Chief Veterinarian of the National Pork
Producers Council.
The United States is the lowest cost and most
technologically innovative producer of food in the world. It is
the globe's top exporter of agricultural products and has the
safest food on the planet, and it's that way because of our
historical commitment to research. To maintain our position in
the world and keep our country food-secure, we must devote more
resources to agricultural research. We need a commitment to
research to help America's farmers and ranchers continue to
feed this country and much of the rest of the world. The UN's
food and agricultural organizations says food production needs
to increase by 70 percent by 2050. That need will be met
through research into more effective food production. If we
don't produce more food for our growing population, are we
going to start importing more and more of it to the United
States? Are we really going to be okay with relying on some
other country to provide for us? Yes, food is a national
security issue.
The benefits of research should be obvious. In case it's
not, according to the USDA's Economic Research Service, for
every dollar of federal agricultural research funds invested,
$20 is returned to the economy. Through better genetics, better
feed rations and new animal care and housing methods, all based
on research, hog farmers now produce more pigs on 78 percent
less land using 41 percent less water than 50 years ago. That's
why the U.S. pork industry has been a strong supporter, funder
and user of agricultural research.
The National Pork Board as the federally established
checkoff program has spent a significant amount of its annual
budget on research over the past 10 years, funding 851 projects
at more than $61 million. One disease the pork industry has
invested research dollars on is porcine reproductive and
respiratory syndrome. PRRS is a viral disease that can cause
reproductive failure in breeding sows and respiratory issues in
pigs of any age. It is the most economically significant
disease now affecting U.S. pork production. Through an almost
30-year-long public-private collaboration starting with the
identification of the causative agent of what we called mystery
pig disease, we have made significant progress in dealing with
this disease. One of those efforts, a PRRS host genetics
consortium, brought together the pork industry, USDA's
Agricultural Research Service, National Institute of Food and
Agriculture, Genome Canada, private companies and universities
to conduct multiyear studies to understand the genetics of PRRS
virus infection. That has led us to the brink of developing a
PRRS-resistant pig. This would be a huge step forward.
The recent outbreak of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus
points to the vulnerability of U.S. agriculture to emerging and
foreign animal diseases, and one of the diseases we and others
in livestock agriculture are particularly worried about is foot
and mouth disease. An outbreak today of that disease would cost
pork, corn, beef and soybean sectors alone $200 billion over 10
years. We are urging Congress to establish and fund through the
next farm bill a robust manufacturing managed vaccine bank to
respond to an FMD outbreak. Research can help address the
alarming gap in the government's preparedness for an FMD
outbreak so in addition we are requesting $30 million a year
for the National Animal Health Laboratory Network, which
conducts diagnostics, as well as $70 million a year for block
grants to the states.
As you can tell, animal agriculture could use a lot more
research dollars. Unfortunately, the commitment to agriculture
research seems to have waned. According to USDA, public-sector
food and agriculture research and development was 50 percent of
the agency's budget from 1970 through 2008, but by 2013 had
fallen to less than 30 percent.
One factor contributing to the decline is the increased
operating costs of federal research facilities. It's estimated
that the annual maintenance and operating costs of such a
facility are ten percent of the cost of building it. So over
and above research dollars, there must be a commitment to
operating funds for federal agriculture research facilities
such as NBAF, which is scheduled to open in 2022. These
infrastructure needs are a critical issue. As an example,
because of maintenance issues, the Plum Island Animal Disease
Center cannot at this time conduct food animal research onsite,
and that's a full five years ahead of the expected opening of
NBAF. There must be a renewed commitment to funding research
which will allow America's farmers to effectively feed a
growing world population, improve public health, and strengthen
national security.
In conclusion, the U.S. pork industry strongly supports and
urges a significant increase in funding for federal intramural
and extramural agricultural research to help America's farmers
and ranchers continue feeding a growing world with safe,
wholesome and nutritious food.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wagstrom follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you, and I now recognize myself
for five minutes of questions.
Dr. Wagstrom and Dr. Gerstein, you both note in your
testimonies that increased travel and trade between nations
combined with the convenience of global travel would
potentially make it easier today for a foreign animal disease
to spread quickly once introduced in the United States, and
we've certainly seen that in the past. But why have we really
had limited instances of that happening, and what are the best
practices for us going forward?
Dr. Wagstrom. One of the best practices going forward is
continuing to look at our customs and border protection. We on
the farm have responsibilities for biosecurity and to make sure
that we are careful about what we bring into our farms. We are
definitely in the pork industry concerned. We have not seen
foot and mouth disease since 1929, but since 2013 we've had an
incursion of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus. In 2009, we had
H1N1 influenza that spread through the pandemic globally, and
we are now dealing with an outbreak of what's called Seneca
Valley virus, and so all three of those have told us--have
proven we have vulnerabilities that we need to address. I'll
yield.
Dr. Gerstein. Thank you. Yeah, I agree with what Dr.
Wagstrom talked about. I think it begins with customs and
border protection being able to seal our borders. When
agricultural products come through, they need to be properly
inspected. There are protocols for that. We do on a routine
basis find animals that should not come into the country, and
of course they're turned away.
But there's more that needs to be done. Here's where
research and development can really be key. We need to think
about concepts such as pen-side diagnostics and having those
available so that we can do a rapid testing of the livestock
and ensure that if there is an issue, it's rapidly addressed.
To the extent possible, we want to identify as early as we can
so that we can take actions and then return the food supply to
its proper state. So I think that's one example. We also----
Chairwoman Comstock. Now are those being used now?
Dr. Gerstein. Well, there are some pen-side diagnostics
that have been looked at in terms of research and development.
I'll leave it to, you know, the experts in terms of how much
they are using them within the different industries but we had
been--when I was with Homeland Security, we had been looking at
pen-side diagnostics as something very key.
I think the recent responses to diseases such as Ebola and
Zika point out that we have a lot of work to do, research and
development in areas such as threat awareness. I remember going
to a session with the former head of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention about a month after the Zika virus had
come into the country, and he made the comment that, you know,
before this we had about an eighth of an inch thick file on
Zika and today it's five inches thick. Well, I mean, we can't
wait until something occurs and then react, and this means that
we have to work globally with partners, we have to understand
how disease is progressing, we have to make sure that all of
our systems, biosurveillance, are tuned so that when something
occurs, it can be an immediate response and not wait and be
reactive. Those are just a couple thoughts.
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you.
And Dr. Higgs or Dr. Moose, if you have any comments on
that.
Dr. Higgs. Well, we talked about diagnostics but the key
thing is actually getting those applied where we need them. We
have relatively poor surveillance. We don't look at most of the
material coming in. We have a group at the BRI, the National
Agricultural Biosecurity Center, who's doing some pathway
analysis to look at routes by which pathogens could make it
into the country, but if we don't have the surveillance out
there, then we're already sort of behind the curve.
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you.
Dr. Moose. I would only add that in addition to the
animals, there's also plant diseases that can have a serious
impact. We've had those happen in the past, not in recent
history, but we know worldwide there's, for example, a fungus
that's had a big problem with wheat, a big impact on wheat
production. Luckily it's not been in the United States. The
same goes for soybean. South America deals with a disease that
luckily we don't have here, but we don't have it here because
in part there's a surveillance system in place.
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you.
And I now yield to Mr. Lipinski for five minutes.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I want to start by talking about
innovation hubs and incubators. It's something that I've spent
a lot of time on here in this Committee, not necessarily on the
side with agriculture but something that I know we all know can
be very helpful. So I wanted to ask Dr. Moose, I know in your
written testimony you describe the importance of Agriculture
Innovation Districts such as University of Illinois Urbana-
Champaign's Illinois Research Park. Can you expand on the
approach of the research park to supporting early-stage
businesses, what are the key strategies that you use, how the
federal government may be able to help more on that?
Dr. Moose. Sure. So at the University of Illinois, we do
have a research park, and what its function is, is to take
these great ideas from the campus and provide assistance in
both the physical infrastructure and support for business
development. The also serve to connect those early startup
businesses with the business venture community. It doesn't have
to be necessarily just venture capital but we'll call it the
investment community, and so those connections then help
transition--it's called the valley of death often where
there'll be an idea, has a great potential, but then fails to
reach commercial application. And so the research park at
Illinois has a number of ways it does that. I actually have
personal experience with that. My wife's company was gestated,
if you will, or nurtured in enterprise works at the research
park. They now are based in Texas but they're one of the
leading sorghum seed genetics companies. And there's another
one also called iCyt that has a very new technology on how to
type both animal and plant genetics, and that technology has
really changed how we do that kind of work, and that was
started in a lab actually down the hall from me. The research
park helped transition them into a business and now they're a
subdivision within Sony Corporation. They were brought into
that field.
And there are many examples of this all throughout the
country of usually universities being the nucleus but not
necessarily where again ideas are nurtured and cross through
that, I call it de-risking where there's a huge risk. There's
often talk about balance between research and development and
industry and university work, and the way I like to describe
that is, there's an R&D, research and development, and
companies are really good at the D. They have a big D and a
little R. Universities are a big R and little D, and then
things like the research park would be the ``and'', the
ampersand, that in between that helps make those links succeed.
Mr. Lipinski. Is there anything that the federal government
can do better to help this process, help anything like what
University of Illinois is doing and others?
Dr. Moose. I believe so. I think there are a number of
federal agencies that recognize this technology transfer
aspect. For example, the NSF now has what's called I-Corps
where the idea is that young entrepreneurs who have a good
research idea, they actually can be supported for a period of
time to investigate the business prospects, and they can do
this in a way where they're not jeopardizing their career in a
sense by taking time off, if you will, from the academic track.
So that's one example. The USDA also has started those things.
And then just the base of research, the federal support,
enables those good ideas to happen, and also the facilities
that may be there. I know, for example, the research park at
Illinois makes use of the resources that are on our campus
because of federal and state support. So possibly just
identifying where those can happen more fruitfully would be an
important role of the federal government.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, and thank you for the commercial
there for I-Corps. As many of my colleagues on the Committee
know, I'm the one who for many years has been talking up I-
Corps, and I know University of Illinois has done a great job
in terms of the number of teams that go through I-Corps, so
it's good to hear how successful that has been.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Marshall. [Presiding] I now recognize Dr. Abraham for
five minutes.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Dr. Marshall, and thanks for
spearheading this hearing. In my opinion, this will be one of
the more important hearings that we in Science, Space, and
Technology hear in the entire year.
Dr. Gerstein, I read your book, ``Bioterror in the 21st
Century,'' and I really think it should be required reading for
every Member of Congress if we're responsible for legislating
and appropriating money for bioterror. It's eye-opening, and as
you alluded to, the mass casualty count could be horrific. It
would pale to anything we've ever seen before.
The field of genetic engineering, genetic modification,
whatever you want to call it sometimes gets beat up pretty bad
in the press but if my medical history serves me right, I think
this goes back to maybe 30 or 40 years ago when the
pseudorabies vaccine with recombinant DNA was actually on the
scene and unfortunately a lot of people don't understand that
hep B vaccines, interferon that we use for cancer, all these
wonderful things in technology and medicine that not only save
lives but feed our world are due to research and technology.
Dr. Wagstrom, you said that, you know, we'll need 70
percent of food production increase by 2050, which means, you
know, we're looking at 200 bushel acre soybeans, 300 bushel
acre corn which is not obtainable now, but if we are expected
as America to feed the world as we heretofore have always done,
then we've got to get there.
We have in this Committee and it's certainly gone national
and worldwide now, we've heard about the CRISPR-Cas9, the
genetic engineering technology. I know, Dr. Gerstein, you've
written extensively on the horrors of CRISPR in a
bioterrorist's hands, and we know the wonderful things it can
do with single and now multiple gene mutation as far as curing
children with leukemia, curing possible children with sickle
cell, those types of deal.
So I guess my question, and all of you are eminently
qualified to weigh in on this, where do we go from here? We
need to move forward. We need to move forward very quickly, and
you know, what's the next step in your opinion? Dr. Gerstein,
I'll start with you and just go down the line.
Dr. Gerstein. Well, thank you for that, and thanks for the
plug for the book.
Mr. Abraham. It's a great book.
Dr. Gerstein. Thank you. So you know, I'm going to come at
this from a Department of Homeland Security perspective and say
that what I worry about is either accidental use of something
or deliberate use of something that results in a catastrophe,
some sort of biological pathogen, and so I'm going to kind of
stick to those. When I talk about areas like CRISPR as a
technology, I don't talk about it as being a danger but it
could be a danger if the technology is misused, and so the key
for us is to understand that in the realm of biotechnology,
much of the area has become very deskilled. You know, if you
talk to people from the old weapons program that we had back in
the '50s and '60s, they talked about people at the bench with
good hands, and today, many of those technologies don't require
good hands and you can do fine in preparing pathogens that can
be very useful as biological weapons, or you could make
manipulations to genomes that could actually be dangerous. And
so I worry about monitoring the different areas where the
technology is being used and understanding what a potential--an
individual with, say, nefarious intent could be doing with
that. In fact, that's one of the reasons why the Director of
National Intelligence in 2016 had identified the gene editing
as a worldwide global threat, and that caused a great deal of
fervor, but I think what he was signaling was that
biotechnology has gotten to the point where it really does
reside in many cases not just in labs but in our communities as
well.
Dr. Higgs. I'll just make a comment on CRISPR-Cas9. I was
on the National Academy committee reviewing that technology. I
suppose it was the speed of development which shocked me. By
the time we held our first meeting, I was getting emails, for
$120 you could buy these kits suitable for high school students
to do this. It was just astounding.
Dr. Moose. Thank you also for this question. I view the
genome editing field, of which CRISPR-Cas is sort of the main
technology, it will revolutionize how we improve crops because
crop improvement through biotechnology, I will call it
tinkering, it's like playing with Lincoln Logs whereas the
CRISPR-Cas, we will be able to basically take a genome and
it'll be like a word processor--edit, change a letter here or
there--and do that in a designed way. So the speed and
precision at which we'll be able to do that is wonderful.
I use the example of our 120-year experiment. We actually
in my lab right now are trying using CRISPR-Cas to see if we
can accelerate that to a five-year time frame. We're trying to
make some of those same changes that breeding took 120 years to
accumulate, can we do this in five. So the speed and precision
will be phenomenal.
That said, and it's been alluded to in the earlier answers,
that also democratizes, if you will, the ability to practice
this technology, and so that may be a real role for the federal
government in how do we connect the technology with society,
with the end users, and make that so that the recognition of
its potential and the responsibility to use it is--that society
understands that and is engaged in that process. I yield.
Dr. Wagstrom. Thank you for the question. Obviously
technology affects all sorts--all areas of agricultural
production, especially in pig production. We look at it as a
way to help us maximize animal health and animal welfare and
help us produce that 70 percent more food. For us, obviously
PRRS is an immense issue. It's a pathogen that causes a lot of
secondary bacterial infections, probably one of the reasons we
use some of the antibiotics we do. So we look at developing a
PRRS-resistant pig, we think we'll not only be able to have
healthier pigs but use less antibiotics. We also see technology
as a potential to help us develop alternatives to the current
antibiotics we use that may have less antibiotic-resistant
consequences throughout the food chain.
I sit as--I'm a liaison to the Presidential Advisory
Committee, our council on combating antimicrobial-resistant
bacteria, and we've actually--one of our recommendations in our
last report is that we put together an Innovation Institute
within the USDA that would help people who are researching
alternatives to antimicrobials and other areas try to go
through an uncertain regulatory process because these are
uncertain where they belong in the regulatory chain and get
those commercialized. So we look at not only a technology as
improving pig breeding but also improving our tools to raise
our animals.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Dr. Marshall, for the extra time.
Mr. Marshall. I now recognize Mr. Beyer for questions.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Dr. Marshall, very much.
My favorite line in history is that America was born on a
farm in Virginia. It's really important that you all are here,
and I really want to thank Chairman Comstock and Ranking Member
Lipinski for putting this on.
It's especially important because this Administration has
repeatedly undermined science, particularly in agencies where
science should be the key component. Just this week, Secretary
Pruitt issued a directive to prevent scientists at the EPA from
serving on the agency's Scientific Advisory Board if they have
had even one EPA grant. And last month, Kathleen Hartnett-White
was nominated to chair the Administration's Council on
Environmental Quality despite the fact that she denies
overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and has
said on the record carbon emissions are harmless and should not
be regulated.
And unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is no
exception. Sam Clovis, who was the Administration's pick to be
the Chief Scientist, is not a scientist of any kind, much less
an agricultural scientist, and we just learned this morning
that he's withdrawn his application nomination for that.
So the American people, Republican, Democratic and
everything else, deserve a higher standard of experience and
accomplishment from the top scientific leaders in our
government. We're very pleased to have top scientific leaders
with us here this morning.
Dr. Moose, I'm fascinated with your background as a
geneticist, and I'm much impressed by the work of the Land
Institute in Salina, Kansas. We've been arguing that all of
nature's ecosystems are perennial polycultures. Agriculture is
largely annual monoculture, which basically is short-term,
high-yield perspective rather than the long term. And 85
percent of human populations' calories come from annual crops.
There are perennials--olive trees, grapes, alfalfa, things like
that, fruit trees--but their work is trying to figure out how
do we move agriculture from annuals to perennials, first by the
domestication of wild perennials or by the perennialization of
existing annuals. So as a maize breeding and plant geneticist,
what's your perspective on the work of the Land Institute and
this notion of moving to perennial polyculture to avoid soil
erosion, all the bad things that happen when you have to turn
the soil every year?
Dr. Moose. Yes, so thank you, Mr. Beyer. I am aware of the
Land Institute. I think they have a very--it's a good approach
that they're taking. There are clear environmental benefits,
sustainability improvements that can be achieved with
perennials. I believe part of the reason that much of our
agricultural systems are an annual base, and first they are
more productive on an annual basis, so you will get higher
yields from an annual crop than a perennial crop because the
perennial crop is actually investing some of that
photosynthesis below the soil, which is obviously a good thing
too, but that's one reason.
The second one, though, is also this risk on the farm. If I
have a perennial--and so I know a little bit about this because
I study miscanthus also, which is a perennial grass that's been
touted as a possible bioenergy crop, a dedicated bioenergy
crop, and it's an amazing plant. There's a lot to learn from
it. But one risk that comes with that is, it takes three years
to establish and get to productivity. The stand may last 10, 15
years but we only have one variety of that kind of plant for
bioenergy. So if a disease was to come in, it might wipe out
that crop and we would not have many options in terms of
replacing it. So annuals offer a flexibility which reduces
risk, and I guess what I would advocate in terms of the best
systems are those that combine the benefits of annuals with the
benefits of perennials, and so research in that area is going
on. I believe it would be good to increase that effort.
Mr. Beyer. Great. Thank you very much.
Dr. Higgs, you said and wrote, and I'm going to quote, ``A
concern was expressed''--this is in the Blue Ribbon Study
Panel--``that the President's fiscal year 2018 budget request
would eliminate all agriculture and animal-specific research by
the DHS Science and Technology Directorate.'' I'd just love if
you could please emphasize for all of us that this is a matter
of national security and shouldn't be partisan at all.
Dr. Higgs. No, you're absolutely correct, and the beauty of
this panel is that it is bipartisan because the needs of this
country go beyond politics in terms of food and agriculture. We
all eat. And having the funding to do that research is
absolutely critical. I alluded to our training that we've got
and that Homeland Security seems not to have funding to sustain
that training after 2018 at the moment. We hear about the
levels of funding that is required to do the research and the
training but that is not being translated into those funds
actually being appropriated to support that.
Mr. Beyer. Great. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Marshall. I now recognize Mr. Lucas for questions.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and before I turn to
Dr. Wagstrom for a specific question, I think it's worth noting
the wondrous system that we have in the United States. I mean,
the Morrow Act of 1862, a couple of you are from those
institutions. For the first time in the history of the world
with President Lincoln's signature on that Act, we made it
possible for someone who did not come from wealth or social
status to go to college, to have an opportunity in agriculture
or mechanics in the sciences to have a college education, a
most amazing accomplishment, and the technology, the training
that's come from that.
A lot of times some of my idealistic friends here in
Congress say why we should spend public dollars to do anything,
let the private industry do it all, but you produce the
scientists who fuel both higher education, research, and the
private industry, correct? You're the pipeline that produces
the brilliant people who go on to drive that, so that is
important, that coalition, that combination, those public
resources in producing our next generation of scientists.
We talk about the animal and health and plant issues. USDA
and sometimes again we on the Ag Committee, and I share both
that Committee assignment and this one, are criticized for the
people that we have around the world but we literally have
agents in foreign countries examining plants and animals before
they come to the United States. We have people in foreign
countries because agriculture is a free-flowing trade, we have
people looking at disease issues there before they can be
certified to bring their product into the country. So the
investments we make, which are sometimes not so exciting in the
eyes of the appropriators and some of other colleagues, are
very necessary. The biggest USDA research facility outside the
United States is, what, Mont Pierre, France? Been there for a
century looking at things that come into the country
beforehand.
Now, a little more of a particular focus, Dr. Wagstrom.
We've talked earlier about foot and mouth, or as my grandfather
called it, hoof and mouth, the most amazing, viciously
aggressive virus that we've kept out of the country for 88
years, which does still exist in other continents and places
around the world. Visit with me for a moment if you would a
little more in detail about the Homeland Security Presidential
Directive Number 9 from 2004 about establishing a national
policy to defend our agriculture and our food systems, and in
particular the concept of the national veterinarian stockpile
of vaccines.
Dr. Wagstrom. Thank you, Mr. Lucas. We have a very small
North American bank, very small. It wouldn't vaccinate all the
pigs and cattle around Guymon, Oklahoma. It's that small. What
we need is a vaccine bank that will protect us against all 23
strains of foot and mouth disease that are circulating around
the world.
Mr. Lucas. And foot and mouth is an example of one of the
things we need to be prepared to----
Dr. Wagstrom. Correct.
Mr. Lucas. --defend ourselves against, one of.
Dr. Wagstrom. Correct. So we not only need a vaccine bank
with at least 500 million doses of those 23 strains, we also
need a diagnostic laboratory network that has got surge
capacity to be able to diagnose not only infected animals but
we have to be able to diagnose that animals are not infected
and are safe to move to slaughter or to move to other
facilities. We need to have foreign animal disease
diagnosticians on the ground and trained to be able to diagnose
those animals. We have a--we'd love to have a pen-side test but
the consequences of having a wrong diagnosis on a potential
economic devastation if we say this animal's infected with foot
and mouth disease and it's not would be devastating. So having
a 100 percent accurate test on a pen-side test is very
difficult. So we need--in addition to that as a preliminary
screen, we need our diagnostic labs to be able to communicate
with our state veterinarians not only in their state but also
the states surrounding them where animals may move. We need to
have seamless information that state veterinarians can look at
from the farm through the diagnostic lab into the federal
system of data collection so that they can make decisions on if
an animal's safe to move, if a quarantine zone needs to be
connected.
Our system of data collection and transfer from private
farms, diagnostic labs, state veterinarians, and federal
veterinarians is broken. The National Pork Board is investing
almost $1 million with the DHS Center in Texas A&M to try to
help put together systems to visualize data that will help us
out in an outbreak. That's privately funded. We also need
public funding to fix those data systems.
Mr. Lucas. Tolerate me for just a moment, Mr. Chairman,
because agriculture, we produce almost everything everywhere in
the country in some quantity. We're not just talking about one
central vaccine stockpile. This has to be regionally placed for
whatever particular disease we're trying to protect ourselves
from to be available instantaneously, and I assume my other
friends over here would note that viruses change subtly,
constantly in the wild so the stockpile has to be adjusted to
reflect what's virulent and available out there. It's not a
sexy topic, Mr. Chairman, but it would be of critical nature.
Would my friends on the panel agree briefly? I guess they all
agree.
Dr. Wagstrom. We all agree. One thought just to put it in
perspective, there are a million pigs a day that are on wheels
moving in a truck somewhere across this country, about half a
million cattle on wheels every day. So we don't have the
likelihood of having a small outbreak on one farm in a remote
area of the country. It's going to be a nationwide outbreak.
Mr. Lucas. I appreciate your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Marshall. Let the record show that Mr. Lucas and the
Chairman of this Committee hearing thinks that biochemistry is
sexy, so I'm all in.
Okay. Next we recognize Ms. Bonamici for questions.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to our panel. The district I represent out in the great
State of Oregon has quite a bit of agriculture, mostly
specialty crops, and this hearing is about the importance of
agricultural research. Sometimes we have to take a step up and
talk about the importance of agriculture. I think a lot of
people in this country are still very detached from the source
of their food. I think efforts like Farm to Table help with
that so that people in urban areas understand that farms are
important and agriculture is important for their food.
I wanted to ask you, recent articles have discussed an
alarming decline in insect populations and also pollinators.
This obviously affects agriculture. Are any of you looking at
this, and if so, what are you finding? Dr. Moose, it looks like
you want to say something.
Dr. Moose. My experience with pollinators is, growing up on
the farm, we had bees. We raised bees. We raised honey. So I
know about the issue that you speak. It's one where science has
yet to quite figure out exactly what the cause of the decline
is. There are a number of possibilities, and it's probably a
combination of factors. That said, in the last few years
there's been a rebound, if you will, and we also don't
understand how that has happened either other than I think as
spoke to earlier about the cows and pigs on wheels, bees are on
wheels as well, and some of that practice may have contributed
to the colony collapse, et cetera, again, not definitive but
there have been changes in that to some extent because of the
concerns around that, and maybe it's just correlation but the
fact that there's been a reduction in the movement and then
less of an issue with the pollinators may be connected.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Climate change affects food
security. How does that shape your research agenda? How are you
looking at with increasing temperatures, increase in severity
of weather events? Dr. Moose again?
Dr. Moose. Yeah. So clearly if you're a farmer, you're
paying attention to climate both daily and seasonally, and so I
think where the opportunity lies is that with the new
technologies--it was mentioned earlier about NASA and their
satellites. That technology and others like it that weren't
even from agriculture necessarily have a big impact on our
ability to monitor at a level unprecedented previously where
all farms can become a research entity, if you wish. And so
being able to track the variation in climate, to track to
performance and the productivity in farms including the
different systems--we have very different kinds of production
systems and sometimes you will hear this system is better than
that system. We had a question about perennial and annual.
Ms. Bonamici. Right, right.
Dr. Moose. The ability to monitor those allows us to
actually gather data to really say here are the benefits to
that system both economically in the short term,
environmentally in the long term, and this is an area--it's
only starting to begin now but there's a tremendous opportunity
with our, we'll call it the Big Data revolution that every
combine is instrumented with a GPS and is tracking, and many
others of this area.
I know in our own department we've recently hired a faculty
member specifically to look into this question because we want
to make sure again connecting farmers to the science to society
that everyone who would be a partner in this is a partner.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. And I wanted to also talk a little
bit about the workforce issue. I serve on the Education and
Workforce Committee, and out in my state we have Oregon State
University, our land grant university, which has extension
services in every one of our 36 counties. They run a great 4H
youth development program. Of course, we have our Future
Farmers of America program. But I know, again, staying with Dr.
Moose for now, you talked about you and your wife growing up on
your family farms. How do we encourage the next generation to
go into agriculture, even if they don't have that family
history that you have? And I'll ask you quickly but then I'll
ask the other panelists as well. How do we make sure we have a
workforce to address these issues?
Dr. Moose. Yeah, so I can speak to that. In the University
of Illinois, most of our students come from Chicagoland so we
really do have this urban population, and I guess the way to
convince them is that this type of research is exciting, and
this is what I try to do on a daily basis, but I think when you
see the advances in science, you know, a lot of students might
think, you know, the doctor or the medicine is where the action
is. When I was, you know, younger, certainly that was the case.
I think that agriculture research, it has that connection that
it could be the next big thing, and that is the kind of message
that we try to convey to students.
Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that. We will certainly need
that workforce. Thank you.
My time is expired. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Marshall. I now recognize myself for questions as well.
I'd like to, without objection, submit the Blue Ribbon
Study Panel for the record, which several of our witnesses have
referenced, and salute Senator Tom Daschle and his great work
on this project as well. It's been a joy to get to work with
him.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Marshall. I'll start with my first question with Mr.
Higgs. You discussed in the process of the Biosecurity Research
Institute where you work has taken to ensure a smooth
transition for NBAF. As you know, NBAF has the full support of
the surrounding community as well as the support of Kansas
State President General Richard Meyers, who's the former
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He brings a very unique
perspective to this and the value of NBAF when it comes to
national security. Can you discuss how quickly, specifically,
how quickly can NBAF start their critical research once it
becomes operational?
Dr. Higgs. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. So
NBAF will become operational, fully operational, probably in
2022, 2023, and it will become operational with dependency on
an appropriate workforce. It will take approximately 350 or 400
people to work at NBAF, and part of our mission at Kansas State
is to help develop that workforce. We're in constant
conversation with Homeland Security, with the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and so forth. We have to align the training with
the needs of NBAF towards 2023. Obviously there will be
sequential employment of people at that facility, but it can't
become fully operational until it has all of the staff
necessary. Both DHS and USDA are already in those conversations
and thinking ahead, but we obviously need a solid plan to know
what type of people we need and when, in order to enable that.
Mr. Marshall. Okay. I'll go to Dr. Gerstein next. The Blue
Ribbon Panel report mentioned several strategies to ensure NBAF
is fully utilized including the private-public relationships.
Earlier this year DHS proposed the closure of the National
Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center located at Fort
Detrick in Maryland and still remains underutilized despite
being brought online seven years ago. How can we ensure NBAF's
space and capabilities are fully utilized to their fullest
extent?
Dr. Gerstein. Well, thanks for that question. Let me start
at the beginning and say I think it's critically important that
we not only fund the development of these facilities but we
think about the long-term viability. In the case of NBACC, I
think we're losing a critical capability for bioforensics and
for threat awareness that could put our country at risk.
Now, turning specifically to NBAF, I like the idea of
developing a strategy, that is, a public-private partnership,
and I would just compliment Kansas for the tremendous support
that they had given when I was in the Department. Just
recognize that they had put forward approximately 25 percent of
the cost to put that facility in--you know, to build it. And so
I think that's really a tremendous commitment but we have to
continue that commitment into the lifecycle, and we have to
ensure that, you know, we bring along industry, the
biopharmaceutical industry as well, the pork producers and the
livestock, cattlemen's associations. These are all very
important that they are part of working together to develop
solutions for this industry.
Mr. Marshall. Dr. Gerstein, are you familiar with the
Fusion Center as well? Are you allowed to talk about how
integral that can be with this process as well? It's quite an
amazing facility. I got to visit recently.
Dr. Gerstein. Well, yeah, absolutely. Look, any time that
you bring information and you fuse different capabilities, you
bring different stakeholders to the table is extraordinarily
important, and in this particular area, the $1 trillion, over
five percent of the U.S. economy, when we can bring that kind
of throw weight into the dialog, it's going to be beneficial.
Mr. Marshall. I'll finish up with Dr. Higgs. The BRI
research also encompasses plant diseases with a focus on
diseases like the fungus wheat blast. Wheat accounts for 20
percent of all calories consumed globally, making ag research a
matter of food security. What kind of impact would wheat blast
have on our ability to produce and export wheat, and what does
BRI and Kansas State do to combat this deadly plant disease and
others? And again, so proud of the Wheat Institute is doing
there as well.
Dr. Higgs. Well, to answer the question briefly, it would
devastate our wheat production. This is a pathogen from South
America that can cause 100 percent crop losses. We've been
conducting research in the BRI since 2009 to study wheat blast
and look at wheat varieties that are resistant to that. We've
done research for the Australian government, for example, who
won't allow that pathogen in the country. We've now seen wheat
blast for the first time get into, Bangladesh and, India, and
it is devastating their crops. So that research is critical and
run by colleagues in the College of Agriculture.
Mr. Marshall. Okay. Thank you, everyone, for answering my
questions.
I'll now recognize Mr. LaHood for questions.
Mr. LaHood. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for having this important hearing today on agriculture
research, and I want to thank the witnesses for being here
today and for your valuable testimony.
The district that I represent in central and west central
Illinois has two distinctions related to agriculture. First,
it's the eighth largest in the country in terms of corn and
soybean production, and also our district produces 96 percent
of the pumpkins produced in the entire world in our district,
and we're awful proud of both those. I like to tell people
we've got some of the most fertile farmland in the entire world
in central and west central Illinois. People are also surprised
to learn that in the State of Illinois, the number one industry
is agriculture. It's not any industry in Chicago or other
places, it's agriculture, and we're awful proud of that in
Illinois.
In my time in office, I've put together an Ag Advisory
Committee that I meet with on a quarterly basis, and we talk
about issues related to agriculture, and I'm amazed at the
technology and the modernization of agriculture in all
different sectors, whether it's drought-resistant seeds or
nutrients that are put on our farm fields or the technology
that goes into our tractors and equipment. It continues to
amaze me what goes on sometimes in a quiet way in agriculture,
and obviously all of that work and the research that has been
done has resulted in yields that continue to get stronger and
stronger. Now, we've got to do some work on prices, but
obviously the work that's gone on has helped with our yields
and really bountiful harvests that we've had.
Before my questions, I want to highlight a unique
agriculture research facility located in Peoria, Illinois, that
I represent, and that's the National Center for Agriculture
Utilization Research in Peoria, also known as the Peoria Ag
Lab. The Ag Lab is run as part of the Agriculture Research
Service (ARS), which has been a vital agency within the
Department of Agriculture. For over a half-century, this agency
has done work to improve the lives of countless Americans and
includes research on corn, wheat and soybeans as well as the
distinction of developing the mass production of penicillin in
the 1940s by Nobel Prize-winning scientists at the Peoria Ag
Lab. Currently, the Peoria Ag Lab is designated to lead
technology transfer for the USDA and focuses on bioenergy,
renewable resources, and research for safe and healthy foods.
To list all the examples of the impactful research done at the
Ag Lab would take more than my allotted time but I would like
to talk about a few and highlight the valuable research that
goes on there.
First, ARS scientists in Peoria developed the first
American Petroleum Institute-certified bio-based motor oil from
a seed crop, providing for growth in the agriculture and
manufacturing sectors of the economy. Second, toxins produced
by fungi during grain production and storage cause billions of
dollars in annual losses to the U.S. economy and have had
significantly negative impact on farmers and rural communities.
The toxin detection technologies developed by ARS in Peoria
were transferred to the private sector via licensing agreements
to more than 30 companies and their widespread use has helped
to ensure the safety of the food supply and help to promote job
growth in the biotechnology area. Third, new biodegradable
products that are nontoxic and inexpensive to produce have been
prepared from renewable materials using a process that can
easily be scaled by small or large businesses in any location.
These products developed by ARS in Peoria can be used to
control a wide variety of pests and pathogens, and combined
with their low production cost will make this discovery a
valuable new tool to help farmers and improve yield and promote
economic development.
Building off that discussion on agriculture research, Dr.
Moose, I wanted to ask you, how can federal support of
agriculture research, which our Peoria Ag Lab relies on federal
research, ensure that America is prepared to lead in emerging
science to continue to benefit our farmers and the U.S.
economy?
Dr. Moose. Yes. So the Peoria Lab's a great example of
this--the research that goes on there, the technology transfer,
the impact that it has on the farm or through society, and so I
would say I guess more examples like that would be beneficial,
and the mechanisms, there are a variety of ways to do it. The
USDA ARS runs that facility. There are others like it that are
partnerships with either university or industry groups.
But I think another aspect that could be sort of going
forward and enhancing this is just convening at the table,
having a voice, an opportunity for industry, government and
society or the end users, we'll call them, sitting down at the
table, and those things happen just in our own--recently the
people from the Peoria Lab are partners in our new Bioenergy
Center that's actually a Department of Energy-funded project
with the University of Illinois and partners all over the
country, and so through that center, we will be having this
conversation and specifically around renewable energy from
biomass and renewable products, and so the group at Peoria Lab
that are partners, they're a critical piece of that translation
from--we have plants that are valuable on the farm, they have
unique properties, how can they be processed and added value.
And the Peoria Lab is well positioned for that because
industry, it might be too risky for them to do that type of
work right now, but if we can transition that into a less risky
and commercially viable option, then that would--the benefits
will come.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you. I look forward to working with you,
Dr. Moose.
Mr. Marshall. I now recognize Mr. Hultgren for questions.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you so much for
being here. This is a very important discussion and I want to
just say thank you for your time and your expertise. Also, I
have to recognize this is the second day in a row that we've
had someone representing one of our great universities from
Illinois, so I want to keep the streak going. I'm looking
forward to tomorrow. I'm not sure who our witness will be then
but we're so proud of University of Illinois and all of our
great universities. So thank you.
As my colleagues have said, agriculture is so important,
and certainly in Illinois, agriculture drives exports. I had
the great opportunity last year to be in Taiwan, meet with the
president of Taiwan, and also foreign and agricultural
ministers there just to discuss how important and mutual
importance of agriculture exports and specifically from
Illinois.
I also serve as Co-Chairman of the Tom Lantos Human Rights
Commission and see that agriculture and food security as an
ever-present force that compounds and exacerbates the basic
lack of legal and human rights in conflict regions around the
world. So we have to continue to recognize what we can do to
make sure that food is available to every single person.
Dr. Moose, I wonder if I could address my first question to
you. Can you talk a little bit about how federal support for
agricultural research can encourage stronger connections
between farmers, scientists and society, and how specifically
Illinois is helping to build those connections?
Dr. Moose. Yes. So as I alluded to in the testimony that I
gave and then in my written testimony, I think the federal
government has this role of bringing the community together,
the community of scientists, the interaction with society, and
then because agriculture is so important to many districts
around the country, it is why it's a national issue. Every
region of the country has their own climate, their own
agricultural systems that operate there, yet we can learn from
all of them. What a corn farmer does in Illinois he may learn
from the farmer elsewhere in the country. So that's one.
Also, it was alluded to earlier, building the pipeline
where through education, you're not only educating the
knowledge, there's the networking, the interaction of people
that I know certainly in my career at North Carolina State, it
was the early days of biotechnology research, and it was
recognized a workforce needed to be developed, and North
Carolina State was one of the first to do that, and now my
peers that I went through that program with are leaders in the
industry, they're leaders in government, they're leaders in
academia. We need to have that next generation also. And I
think the unique aspect of that program and others like we have
at Illinois, for example, our Illinois Plant Reading Center,
industry supports the graduate training. They don't expect a
research outcome. All they expect is, maybe we'll have some
good employees, you know, to hire down the road, and so I think
that educational piece is really important, and it was integral
to Lincoln's vision. He considered education foremost to drive
the research.
Mr. Hultgren. I agree. Let me open this up to everyone.
Coming from Illinois, I see our National Laboratories as
vital to our research ecosystem, building the large research
facilities and unique one-off machines that no one institution
or federal agency has the ability to manage, so again, these
laboratories are so important to bring people together. The
Advanced Photon Source at Argonne has nearly 2,000 users in the
biological and life sciences. I toured Lawrence Berkeley this
year and saw the great benefits of the Joint Genome Institute
to multiple areas of research. Facilities like the Molecular
Science Lab at PNNL also come to mind.
Do you think that USDA is properly leveraging these
facilities and other investments in our lab, and how can we
better facilitate a more collaborative approach between
different agencies so that we're doing the best science and not
duplicating efforts and facilities? I'd open it up to anybody.
Dr. Gerstein. Well, I wouldn't mind starting just to talk a
little bit about Plum Island and the work that was done there.
I was in charge of Plum Island. It was part of the Science and
Technology Directorate when I was acting Under and then Deputy
Under Secretary. So I worked with them very closely, and I
always felt like Plum Island was really very much of a joint
facility. I had Department of Homeland Security people and I
had people from USDA, Department of Agriculture, and every time
I'd go up there, I couldn't keep straight who was from which
organization, and they were literally working on the bench side
by side. One of the outputs of this collaboration was the first
ever what we call a diva vaccine for foot and mouth disease,
and so that's a great representation of where there is good
collaboration. I felt the same with other agencies, for
example, EPA and Department of Ag and Health and Human Services
as well as Homeland Security. We all collaborated on difficult
questions about how would one handle a foot and mouth disease
event. For example, think about the large amount of just waste
that would be generated if you had to depopulate a number of
livestock across several different farms. You know, we were
thinking about numbers in excess of 50,000 animals at a time
that would--you know, you'd have to do something with all that
waste. So, I mean, we worked very closely to try to
collaborate, and there's a lot of--believe it or not, even on
the depopulation question, there's a lot of research and
development that goes into answering how clean is clean enough
and how do you dispose of what could be very dangerous
pathogenic material.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you. Five minutes, now six minutes,
goes by way too fast. So we'll follow up because I think this
is an important issue of again how we can be continuing to
build collaboration. Thank you all.
I yield back.
Mr. Marshall. I do want to add my thanks to all the
witnesses for coming today. It was an excellent education for
me. Thanks for your testimony and the Members for their
questions and participation.
The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
written comments and written questions from Members.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]