1410 A, B, and C, Waterfront Center
800 9th Street SW
February 27, 2006
1:00pm - 5:00pm
Jerry Arkin (University of Georgia)
Mike Harrington (ED-WAAESD)
Larry Miller (CSREES)
Agenda Item 1 - Approval of Agenda, Minutes, and Interim Actions:
Approval of agenda, minutes and intermin actions was approved.
Agenda Item 5 - ESCOP Budget & Legislative Committee: EDs will facilitate the effort, not for the purpose of negotiating the President's budget but to develop some method to implement parts thereof; appointments (two directors and the ED from each region- 15 folks)
Agenda Item - Presenter
|Call to Order and Welcome - Al Parks|
|Approval of Agenda, Minutes and Interim Actions - Al Parks|
|CSREES Update - Larry Miller and Colien Hefferan|
|NASULGC Update - Ian Maw|
BAA-Policy Board of Directors Update - Eric Young and Nancy Cox
ESCOP Budget & Legislative Committee - LeRoy Daugherty and Daryl Lund
|ESCOP Communication & Marketing Committee - Jerry Arkin and Tom Fretz|
|ESCOP Science & Technology Committee - Steve Puppeke and Eric Young|
|NRI Survey Priorities - Mike Harrington|
|SAES/ARD Workshop - Ron Pardini and Mike Harrington|
|Open Discussion/Other Business - Group|
Approval of Agenda, November 14, 2005, Washington, DC Meeting Minutes and Interim Actions
Action Requested: Approval of agenda, minutes, and interim actions.
Action Taken: Minutes prepared for the scheduled ESS meeting September 26, 2005. (San Antonio, Texas) and minutes of the November 14, 2005 ESCOP Executive Committee meeting (Washington, D.C. - NASULGC Annual Meeting) were approved.
Item: CSREES Update
Presenter: Larry Miller and Colien Hefferan
In meeting comments:
Action Requested: None
Item: NASULGC Update
Presenter: Ian Maw
Changes at NASULGC
On January 1, 2006, M. Peter McPherson became President of NASULGC and this change has ushered in numerous other changes in personnel and roles and responsibilities.
Three directors of the organization have been released and new personnel in the areas of government affairs, public affairs, and academic affairs are being identified. Howard Gobstein has joined the staff as Vice President for Research and Science Policy, David Shulenburger, currently executive vice president and provost at the University of Kansas, has been appointed as Vice President of Academic Affairs. Mort Neufville, Executive Vice-President and the "leader of aggie land" has been moved into the Office of the President and will spend the majority of his time working with the commissions and councils of the organization. . Kerry Bolognese who for the past year has been serving as the NASULGC government affairs director has returned to his international role as vice president. In this role, he will once again be working closely with those of us in the food, agriculture, and natural resource arena. And as you know, I have been named as Vice President for Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources assuming those responsibilities that Mort had for the Commission on Food, Environment and Renewable Resources (CFERR). These include the Board on Human Sciences, the Board on Vet. Medicine, Board on Natural Resources, Board on Oceans and Atmospheres, and the Board on Agriculture Assembly. Yes, suddenly the plate of work and responsibility has become a fairly large platter. .
We also have experienced a downsizing of the organization's administrative support staff (three less) which included the APS administrative assistant, Angela Gray. Suzette Robinson will serve as my direct administrative assistant with support from Carrie Composto. Suzette knows our programs quite well so the learning curves will be very flat. Unfortunately for me, she has been out of the office on medical leave this past month and only returned late last week. So we do have some "catch-up" to accomplish.
Amanda Murphy, Assistant Director for Natural Resources, will serve as my back-up for Academic Program matters as well as other areas now under my purview in my new role as may be needed. All other "aggie" personnel remain the same.
In addition to the personnel changes, Peter McPherson has taken very direct action to work with the NASULGC Board of Directors to frame an agenda for the organization over the next several years. He initiated this effort by bringing together half a dozen sitting or former presidents as a "transition team" which met in late November and provided guidance regarding future topics that the association might consider as "high value" efforts.
In January, the NASULGC Board was assembled for a one-day retreat in Washington at which time background papers on a number of topics of increasing importance to the higher education community were considered. From the ensuing discussion an agenda of priority topics has been assembled for the association to work on. These include: Accountability/ Measurement (Learning Outcomes); The Public University in Economic Development/Manufacturing; K-12 Education; Urban Challenges; Engagement; International Education and Development; Innovative University; 1890/1994 Institutions - Building Capacity; CREATE -21, and; Higher Education Reauthorization. The association's various commissions and councils will take the lead on the development and work on these topics with the support of NASULGC staff. For many of these topical areas there will be developed compendiums of "best practices" while for others more direct actions will be planned and implemented.
McPherson will be easily engaged in the work of the BAA and its various sectors of interest. He has met with the Policy Board of Directors, convened a meeting of the NASULGC staff and the BRT, and with me paid a visit to Chuck Conner to discuss CREATE-21. He is very supportive of our interests and work and will be available to champion these both within the NASULGC family and beyond to both government agencies and congressional offices.
National Academy of Science Leadership Summit
What was started several years ago as an idea to which many of our APS colleagues gave time and definition has finally arrived. The Academy will soon announce its steering committee for the effort and, from that which I have been able to learn, we will be pleased with the composition of it. On Monday at the APS meeting there will be a unique opportunity to interact with three individuals who will likely be key players in the effort from here on out as well as the two senior Academy staff that have been working with us.
Obviously, this effort has taken more time to come together than we might have anticipated as original and even modified timelines have required further extension. However, what is important is that the product initiates a broad dialogue from a national platform to the institutional department level and will effect change. The effort is supported by REE, NSF, Farm Foundation, AFB, and the W.K.Kellogg Foundation and will be held at the Academy in DC on October 3-5, 2006.
As you will recall, last year NASULGC entered into an agreement with EERE (Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy) of DOE (Department of Energy) to conduct small pilot projects utilizing the BAA Section Executive Directors as leaders of the individual efforts. Dr. James R. Fischer, of EERE reported on the success of these at the NASULGC Annual Meeting.
Based upon the experiences (and lessons learned) during the first year, NASULGC has entered into a three-year agreement with EERE to build upon the nascent efforts of last year and expand the project to a larger participant group of individuals and institutions. The majority of the foci of the five project areas engage our colleagues in extension or research and there exist a number of wonderful opportunities for growing collaborations. However, there are also increasingly strong signals that EERE is interested in building greater capacity within the higher education system for workforce preparation in the areas of interest to the Department of Energy.
Ian's New Role
My new role as vice president for food, agriculture and natural resources was totally unanticipated and means more time to be spent with the BAA Policy Board and its committees and the BAA sections as well as the other CFERR Boards. However, it is clear that the majority of my time and advocacy will be with the BAA and I look forward to doing so.
For a while it will be challenging to arrange meeting times and there will likely be inevitable conflicts (example: today --- Monday, February 27 I need to be in three different places at the same time).
None-the-less, I encourage all to not hesitate to call on me for assistance, help, whatever… and I do intend to be active with all areas of the family.
In meeting comments:
Action Requested: Information only
Item: BAA-Policy Board of Directors Update
Presenter: Nancy Cox and Eric Young
The BAA Policy Board of Directors has two subcommittees, Budget & Advocacy and Farm Bill, and their reports are given in agenda items 5 and 4.2, respectively. The PBD has also appointed an ad hoc committee, CREATE 21, to propose a new model for the USDA/LGU partnership. The CREATE 21 report is given in agenda item 4.1.
The next meeting of the PBD will be March 21-22 in Storrs, CT hosted by the University of Connecticut.
In meeting comments:
Action Requested: Information only.
Item: BAA-Policy Board of Directors Update - CREATE
Presenter: Steve Slack, Daryl Lund and Mike Harrington
Cleck here for CREATE
Action Requested: Information only
Item: BAA-Policy Board of Directors Update - FARM
Presenter: Daryl Lund
Draft Language/Ideas for 2007 Farm Bill
1. FORESTRY SUBCOMMITTEE (Steven Daley-Laursen)
1. Amend McIntire-Stennis authorization language for funding of forestry research.
The 2002 Farm Bill included the following language:
SEC. 8201. MCINTIRE-STENNIS COOPERATIVE FORESTRY RESEARCH PROGRAM.
It is the sense of Congress to reaffirm the importance of Public Law 87-788 (16 U.S.C. 582a et seq.), commonly known as the `McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act'.
We would suggest an improved version something like the following (changes in italics):
SEC. 8201. MCINTIRE-STENNIS COOPERATIVE FORESTRY RESEARCH PROGRAM.
It is the sense of Congress to reaffirm the importance of Public Law 87-788 (16 U.S.C. 582a et seq.), commonly known as the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act which distributes funds by formula for the purposes of assisting the various states in carrying out a program of state forestry research at state forestry schools and colleges and developing a trained pool of forest scientists capable of conducting needed forestry research. It is also the sense of Congress that this program should include research on, among other topics of importance: (1) ecological restoration, (2) catastrophe management, (3) valuing and trading of ecological services; (4) energy conservation, biomass energy and bio-based materials development; and (4) ways of fostering healthy forests and a globally competitive forest resources sector.
The Congress continues authorization for the Cooperative Forestry Research
Program (McIntire-Stennis), at the level of one-half the research appropriation
for the USDA Forest Service through funds distributed in base and competitive
formats for the purpose of assisting the states in carrying out a program
of State forestry research at State forestry schools and colleges, and to
develop a trained pool of forest scientists capable of conducting needed
forestry research in the future."
This expresses support for the program, sets an authorized level, reaffirms this is a formula and competitive program for the states, and provides for both research and graduate education purposes.
2. Possibly amend RREA (Renewable Resources Extension Act) authorization language for funding of forestry and natural resources extension.
We suggest the following additions to authorization language under the original Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1675).
…distributes funds by formula and competitive process to the various states for the purpose of assisting state forest resources schools and colleges in carrying out a program of sustainable forestry and natural resources education for private landowners. Programs address diverse audiences, support economic opportunities for individuals and communities, and foster healthy forest lands and a globally competitive forest resources sector by building our nation's capacity to successfully adapt to changing economic, social and ecological conditions.
Funding in this program under its authorized purposes will focus educational programs on a select list of program priorities identified in national, regional and state plans, including emphasis on: (1) modern tools and approaches for sustainable management of forest and rangeland ecosystems and water resources; (2) market mechanisms for restoration and trading of ecological services; (3) bio-based fuels for energy conservation and forest health; (4) new bio-based products and industries in relation to forest land conversion and forest health; (5) post-catastrophic management and restoration relating to fire, invasive species and weather-caused phenomena; and (6) collaborative habitat conservation across ownership boundaries.
The 2002 Farm Bill included the following language. We suggest that this language be included in the next Farm Bill, including the edits (underlined italics) as indicated in Section 5B b1 under AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
SEC. 8101. SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY OUTREACH INITIATIVE; RENEWABLE RESOURCES
(a) SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY OUTREACH INITIATIVE- The Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 is amended by inserting after section 5a (16 U.S.C. 1674a) the following:
`SEC. 5B. SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY OUTREACH INITIATIVE.
`The Secretary shall establish a program, to be known as the `Sustainable Forestry Outreach Initiative', to educate landowners concerning the following:
(1) The value and benefits of practicing sustainable forestry. (2) The importance of professional forestry advice in achieving sustainable forestry objectives. (3) The variety of public and private sector resources available to assist the landowners in planning for and practicing sustainable forestry.'.
(b) RENEWABLE RESOURCES EXTENSION ACTIVITIES-
(1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- Section 6 of the Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1675) is amended by striking the first sentence and inserting the following: `There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2007.'. (2) TERMINATION DATE- Section 8 of the Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1671 note; Public Law 95-306) is amended by striking `2000' and inserting `2007'.
(b) RENEWABLE RESOURCES EXTENSION ACTIVITIES-
(1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- Section 6 of the Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1675) is amended by striking the first sentence and inserting the following: `There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2017.' (2) TERMINATION DATE- Section 8 of the Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1671 note; Public Law 95-306) is amended by striking `2007' and inserting `2017'.
2. Research and Education Subcommittee (Fred Cholick, Phil Schwab, David Hansen)
Remove cap on IDC to negotiated rate
SEC. 714. INDIRECT COSTS.
Section 1462 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3310) is amended--
(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `Except';
(2) by striking `19 percent' and all that follows and inserting `the negotiated indirect cost rate established for an institution by the cognizant Federal audit agency for the institution.'; and(3) by adding at the end the following:
`(b) EXCEPTION- Subsection (a) shall not apply to a grant awarded competitively under section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638).'.
SEC. 753. COMPLIANCE WITH MULTISTATE AND INTEGRATION REQUIREMENTS.
Funds Expended on Extension Multistate Activities
(a) MULTISTATE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION ACTIVITIES- Section 3 of the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 343) is amended by striking subsection (h) and inserting the following:
`(h) MULTISTATE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION ACTIVITIES-
`(1) DEFINITION OF MULTISTATE ACTIVITY- In this subsection, the term `multistate activity' means a cooperative extension activity in which 2 or more States cooperate to resolve problems that concern more than 1 State.
`(A) IN GENERAL- To receive funding under subsections (b) and (c) for a fiscal year, a State must have expended on multistate activities, in the preceding fiscal year, an amount equivalent to not less than 25 percent of the funds paid to the State under subsections (b) and (c) for the preceding fiscal year.`(B) DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT- In determining compliance with subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall include all cooperative extension funds expended by the State in the preceding fiscal year, including Federal, State, and local funds.
`(3) REDUCTION OF PERCENTAGE- The Secretary may reduce the minimum percentage required to be expended for multistate activities under paragraph (2) by a State in a case of hardship, unfeasibility, or other similar circumstances beyond the control of the State, as determined by the Secretary.
`(4) PLAN OF WORK- The State shall include in the plan of work of the State required under section 4 a description of the manner in which the State will meet the requirements of this subsection.
`(5) APPLICABILITY- This subsection does not apply to funds provided--
`(A) to a 1994 Institution (as defined in section 532 of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note; Public Law 103-382)); or`(B) to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or Guam.'.
Funds Expended on Integrated Activities
(b) INTEGRATED RESEARCH AND EXTENSION ACTIVITIES- Section 3 of the Hatch Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C. 361c) is amended by striking subsection (i) and inserting the following:
`(i) INTEGRATED RESEARCH AND EXTENSION ACTIVITIES-
`(1) IN GENERAL-
`(A) REQUIREMENT- To receive funding under this Act and subsections (b) and (c) of section 3 of the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 343) for a fiscal year, a State must have expended on activities that integrate cooperative research and extension (referred to in this section as `integrated activities'), in the preceding fiscal year, an amount equivalent to not less than 25 percent of the funds paid to the State under this section and subsections (b) and (c) of section 3 of the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 343) for the preceding fiscal year.`(B) DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT- In determining compliance with subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall include all cooperative research and extension funds expended by the State in the prior fiscal year, including Federal, State, and local funds.
`(2) REDUCTION OF PERCENTAGE- The Secretary may reduce the minimum percentage required to be expended for integrated activities under paragraph (1) by a State in a case of hardship, unfeasibility, or other similar circumstances beyond the control of the State, as determined by the Secretary.
`(3) PLAN OF WORK- The State shall include in the plan of work of the State required under section 7 of this Act and under section 4 of the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 344), as applicable, a description of the manner in which the State will meet the requirements of this subsection.
`(4) APPLICABILITY- This subsection does not apply to funds provided--
`(A) to a 1994 Institution (as defined in section 532 of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note; Public Law 103-382)); or`(B) to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or Guam.`(5) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Funds described in paragraph (1)(B) that a State uses to calculate the required amount of expenditures for integrated activities under paragraph (1)(A) may also be used in the same fiscal year to calculate the amount of expenditures for multistate activities required under subsection (c)(3) of this section and section 3(h) of the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 343(h)).'.
Authorization Language for the Borlaug International Agricultural Science and Technology Fellowship Program
Agricultural fellowship program for agricultural scientists from low- and
The Secretary of Agriculture shall establish a fellowship program to be known as the "Borlaug International Agricultural Science and Technology Fellowship Program," to provide fellowships for scientific training to individuals from eligible countries (as determined under subsection (b) of this section) who specialize in agricultural education, research and extension for study in the United States.
(b) Eligible countries
Countries described in any of the following paragraphs shall be eligible to participate in the program established under this section:
(1) Low-income country
A country with low per capita income and with foreign aid assistance from the United States to promote employment opportunities, increase income levels and levels of living particularly in the rural areas, and to increase agricultural productivity to reduce rural poverty.
(2) Middle-income country
A country that has developed economically to the point where it no longer qualifies for bilateral foreign aid assistance from the United States because its per capita income level exceeds the eligibility requirements of such assistance programs (hereafter referred to in this section as a "middle-income" country).
(3) Ongoing relationship
A middle-income country that has never qualified for bilateral foreign aid assistance from the United States, but with respect to which an ongoing relationship with the United States, including technical assistance and training, would provide mutual benefits to such country and the United States.
(4) Type of government
A country that has recently begun the transformation of its system of government from a non-representative type of government to a representative democracy and that is encouraging democratic institution building, and the cultural values, institutions, and organizations of democratic pluralism.
(5) Independent states of the former Soviet Union
A country that is an independent state of the former Soviet Union (as defined in section 5602 (8) of this title), to the extent that the Secretary of Agriculture determines that such country should be eligible to participate in the program established under this section.
(c) Purpose of fellowships - Fellowships under this section shall promote food security and economic growth in developing countries by educating a new generation of agricultural scientists, increasing scientific knowledge and collaborative research to improve agricultural productivity, and extending this knowledge to users and their intermediaries in the market place. Fellowships shall support:
(1) training and collaborative research opportunities through exchanges for entry-level international agricultural research scientists, faculty and policymakers from developing and middle income countries.
(2) collaborative research to improve agricultural productivity;
(3) transfer of new science and agricultural technologies to strengthen agricultural practice; and
(4) reduction of barriers to technology adoption, such as ineffectual policies and regulations.
(d) Individuals who may receive fellowships - The Secretary shall utilize the expertise of U.S. land grant universities, international organizations working in agricultural research and outreach, and national agricultural research organizations to help identify program candidates for fellowships under this section from both the public and private sectors of those countries. The Secretary may provide fellowships under the program authorized by this section to private agricultural producers from eligible countries.
(e) Use of Fellowships - Fellowships shall be used to promote linkages between agricultural professionals of other nations with those of the U.S. and the international Agricultural research system and, as appropriate, with U.S. entities conducting research. They will be used to support three groups of candidates
(1) Individuals who participate in graduate agricultural degree training at a U.S. institution.
(2) Individuals who participate in the Individual Career Improvement Program which is for agricultural scientists from developing countries to upgrade skills and understanding in agricultural science and technology.
(3) Individuals who participate in the Borlaug Leadership Course aimed at senior agricultural policy makers from developing countries, in particular from sub-Saharan Africa and from the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union.
(f) Program implementation - USDA shall provide the coordination, evaluation and monitoring of the overall Borlaug International Agricultural Science and Technology Fellowship Program as well as direct management of the Individual Borlaug Fellows component. Management of the program for students undertaking graduate training in the U.S. may be sub-contracted to collaborating partners.
(g) Fund authorization levels - There are authorized to be appropriated without fiscal year limitation such sums as may be necessary to carry out the program established under this section, except that the amount of such funds in any fiscal year shall not exceed
(1) for the Graduate Studies Program in Agriculture, $1,250,000;
(2) for the Individual Career Improvement Program, $2,500,000; and
(3) for the Borlaug Agricultural Policy Executive Leadership Course, $1,250,000.
(h) Complementary funds - If the Secretary of Agriculture determines that it is advisable in furtherance of the purposes of the program established under this section, the Secretary may accept money, funds, property, and services of every kind by gift, devise, bequest, grant, or otherwise, and may, in any manner, dispose of all such holdings and use the receipts generated from such disposition as general program funds under this section. All funds so designated for the program established under this section shall remain available until expended.
(i) U.S. Board - A Board shall be created to oversee activities of the Borlaug International Agricultural Science and Technology Fellowship Program. It shall consist of two representatives from each of the Latin American, African, South Asian, and East Asian regions; two representatives from U.S. land-grant universities; two representatives from development or donor organizations; and two representatives from agricultural industries.
3. Rural Development Subcommittee (from Marc Johnson and Cornelia Flora)
We will focus our efforts in the farm bill in three areas and work with farm and commodity group constituents to become more aware and supportive of general rural development to replace some of the commodity programs which likely will be reduced due to the WTO:
1. Springing from 2002 Farm Bill sections 6003 (Rural Business
Opportunity Grants), 6014 (Rural Business Enterprise Grants), 6015
(Rural Cooperative Development Grants), 6022 (Rural Telework), and
6029 (Rural Business Investment Program) the subjects of rural
entrepreneurship and e-commerce should be dealt with from applied
research, extension education, and demonstration project
approaches to assure that proper human capital investment is in
place to use federal and matching funds most effectively to
provide greatest actual impact.
2. Springing from Section 6006 (Multi-Jurisdictional Regional
Planning Organizations) the subjects of community development
planning and analysis through applied research and extension
demonstration and outreach education will be recommended for
greatest regional impact.
3. <>Springing from successes with Sections 6401 (Value-Added
Agricultural Product Market Development Grants) and 6402
(Agricultural Innovation Center Demonstration Projects), continued
authorization will be recommended.<>
Language changes will be offered to emphasize access by land grant universities to provide these research and educational services. We also will offer language for addition of a rural entrepreneurship initiative.
It is important to note that Subtitle A - Extension, Section 7102 of the National Agricultural Research and Extension and Extension Policy Act was amended to insert "rural economic community and business development" throughout that area, making clear that rural economic community and business development were an integral part of REE's work.
Section 7121 Agricultural Telecommunications Program
This should be amended to include agriculture and rural development telecommunications program.
Section 7105 Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems
It is important to note that the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems in part D does include rural economic and business and community development policy. This might be expanded to look not only at policy but at rural economic community development as well.
In general, this section does not link well to the work going on in rural development. There is a need in the Farm Bill to somehow link investments that are made through the rural development section of the Bill to the outputs and outcomes that can be measured through the REE section of the Bill.
Section 7208 Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990
This could be expanded under B: High Priority Research and Extension Initiatives. Under Land Use Management, Research and Extension there should be language that includes the community aspects of land use management, not just application of tools.
Section 7208 (b)
Water and Air Quality Research and Extension
This should be modified to include the community mechanisms that can help litigate the impacts of agriculture on air and water quality and collaboration between communities and land managers in reducing those.
Agrotourism Research and Extension
This should be modified to understand not only the impacts of agrotourism but the circumstances under which agrotourism can thrive and have positive community impacts.
Section 7118 Organic Agriculture and Research and Extension Initiative
We might want to add a section, perhaps under D-7, that would look at the community commissions and structures that support alternative organic agriculture enterprises.
Subtitle N Biosecurity
Under B, a Section 5 might be added that would say, "Build community capacity to respond to vital security hazards in a coordinated and effective way."
Section 7405 Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program
It would be very useful under the list of general pieces of education to add something around integration of beginning farmers and ranchers into supportive community networks.
Subtitle E Miscellaneous 7501 Resident Instruction and Distant Education
Institutions of Higher Education in the United States
We should say "in the food, agricultural and rural social sciences" or "sciences of rural development," which are absolutely vital for rural community success.
4. Energy Subcommittee (Stan Johnson)
The Sub Committee for the Energy Title for the Farm Bill met and has agreed on the following recommendations for change. We commend the Legislators for recognizing the importance of energy to agriculture and the nation by introduction of the new Title. We feel, however, that the changes that we have recommended will make the Title more effective in stimulating greater participation of agriculture in the bioeconomy, and in the expansion of production of new renewable sources of energy. Our recommendations are first for the overall Title and then by section of the existing Title.
1. We feel that the Title should be changed to "energy and bioproducts." The focus of the Title is, at present, too narrow. All plants now operating to generate energy from biomaterials produce both "energy" and "bioproducts." Moreover, the sustainability of these plants depends in a fundamental way on both the energy and the bioproducts markets. Having the Title as it does--focusing mainly on energy--takes away from the real production situation faced by farm owners when they invest in energy producing plants. They invest based on both the energy output and the outputs of related products. Both outputs are critical to the reduction in dependence of our economy on fossil fuels and materials.2. The Title focuses too narrowly on "biomass" and not broadly enough on other sources of renewable energy that are important to agriculture: wind, solar, and geothermal. All of these sources of renewable energy are important to rural small businesses and critical to the role that agriculture will play in the future of the nation and its energy policy. All closely involve the private lands that are mostly under the control of agricultural producers and thus an important part of the future for agriculture. Agriculture must be an integral part of the development of these other renewable energy resources.
1. The Federal Procurement for Biobased Products, Section 9002, has not materialized as fast as was anticipated. Still, there has been important work on this Section that can lead to the opening of new Federal markets for biobased products. The Federal regulations and clearances necessary to make this a successful effort have involved more negotiation than was first thought. But, these negotiations are now nearly complete. There will need to be increased emphasis on this Section and, in particular, on the way that the small businesses in agriculture can access these Federal markets for their products. This could involve the location of regional centers that would assist the producers in finding the Federal markets. These centers may be particularly important to the smaller producers who do not have a national or international reach for their marketing efforts. It is noted that this is one of the few sections of the Title that gives emphasis to bio materials.
2. Sections 9003, The Bio energy Development Grants. This could be expanded in several ways-to include bio materials (not sure what the intent is here - Mike) and to the other sources of renewable energy. The grants were well received to buy the farmer-owned businesses. One additional feature that could be included would be to have a follow-up study on the grants that were made to determine if there were conditions on the nature of the applications that made for success or failure of the resulting enterprises.
3. There should be more funding in the bio diesel (We need to make sure that we are using the correct for of this word - biodiesel ??) section, Section 9004. There is evidence that there is a market that will see significant growth in the near term due to regulations coming on the use of high sulfur fossil based diesel fuel. The technology for bio diesel has increased in productivity since the last Farm Bill as well.
4. The Energy Audit Sections, Sections 9005 and 9006, need added effort and expansion to other sources of renewable energy. Many farmers have energy use practices that can be improved, becoming more energy efficient. The Extension Service working perhaps with the Department of Energy could make a big difference in the cost of production for many agricultural crops and livestock. Local energy production for farm use is a possibility as well.
5. Biomass Research and Development, Section 8, should be coordinated with the Department of Energy and their programs on Renewable Energy.
6. Section 310, Funding, could be opened up to more Commodity Credit type funds. There is a growing need for funding renewable energy and the bioproducts aspects of the energy production process. These products may soon become one of the mainstays of farm production.7. Section 9009, Cooperative Extension and Extension Products, needs to be funded independently from the Research, Education and Extension Title. This Extension mission is far from that funded in the traditional legislation, and may need to be funded in different ways. One suggestion is to just name it Extension and Research Funding and make the funds accessible to a larger audience including the land-grant institutions, and all branches within them. There is great need for educational programming that can make the producers aware of the opportunities that exist for them in the bio renewables, bio energy and bioproducts areas, and to help them with the technical aspects of building businesses which are dependent on these technologies and business methods.
5. Nutrition Subcommittee (Rachel Johnson)
The National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act (NNMRRA) expired in 2003. Nutrition monitoring has an impact on billions of dollars in federal expenditures on food assistance, nutrition education, health programs, and food additive and pesticide approvals. The information from national surveys leverages billions of private sector dollars allocated to nutrition labeling, food product development and production. It is time to legislate new nutrition research and monitoring goals and to address unmet needs.
Our national nutrition monitoring system is essential for tracking the health and well being of the American population and is especially important for observing health trends in our nation's children. This nutrition monitoring system tracks the obesity rates in American children and adults. As obesity rates have continued to increase to 31% of American adults, so too have rates of heart disease, certain cancers, stroke, and diabetes. The rise in these diseases is very costly not only in terms of human pain and suffering but also in terms of billions of dollars worth of medical expenses and lost days from work. According to the 2001 Surgeon General's Report, obesity costs the U.S over $117 billion a year in medical expenses and claims as many lives as poverty, cigarette smoking, or problem drinking. The public health community will only be able to stem the rising tide of obesity if we have information on patterns of food consumption and factors contributing to food purchasing and intake.
Knowing both what Americans eat and how their diets directly affect their health provides valuable information to guide policies on food safety, food labeling, food assistance, military rations, and dietary guidance. The USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the DHHS National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) jointly conduct national nutrition monitoring activities under the integrated NHANES/CSFII survey. Collected data are essential for informing policymakers and researchers as well as the public on the health and nutrition status of American children and adults. The national nutrition monitoring system is this nation's best and most comprehensive method of assessing nutritional health because the survey continuously collects usual dietary and supplement intake and laboratory indicators of nutrition status from a nationally representative US sample.
Request to Congress
To reauthorize the Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act. The provisions included in the reauthorization of the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act (PL 101-445) would:
Ensure that policymakers have access to full and complete information on
the nutritional status and fitness levels of children, youth, and other
Allow data from integrated NHANES/CSFII to be combined with information from other nutrition and health surveys to determine impact of Federal nutrition and food safety programs and to guide other policy recommendations
Require USDA and DHHS to consult with Federal agencies, as well as state and local governments, the private sector, scientific communities, health professionals, and the public regarding monitoring and research needs to determine the nutritional status, fitness levels, diet and health knowledge of Americans.
Update the food composition tables used to assess diets regularly in order to keep pace with changes in the food supply.
Make grants available to states, public, and nonprofit entities to assist with the collection and analysis of nutritional and fitness data, based on methodology developed for the integrated NHANES/CSFII survey.
Provide competitive grants for development of uniform, cost-effective standards to assess nutritional status and for relating food consumption patterns to nutritional and health status.
American Dietetic Association, American Farm Bureau, American Heart Association, American Institute of Cancer Research, American Public Health Association, American Society for Clinical Nutrition, American Society for Nutrition Sciences, Consumer Federation of America, Grocery Manufacturers of America, Institute of Food Technologists, National Pork Producers Association, National Potato Council, National WIC Association, The Pork Board, Produce for Better Health Foundation, Produce Marketing Association, and The Sugar Association
Action Requested: Information only
Item: ESCOP Budget & Legislative Committee
Presenter: LeRoy Daugherty and Daryl Lund
To: Al Parks, Chair ESCOP
From LeRoy Daugherty, Greg Weidemann, Daryl Lund
Re: Hatch appropriations
Below is a summary of the elements in the CSREES FY 07 budget that severely impact the Agricultural Experiment Stations. Most significant among the proposed changes is moving approximately 55.6% of the Hatch appropriation to multistate, competitive awards (with the remaining 43.4% awarded by the current formula) by 2011.
In discussions with Colien at the BAA Budget and Advocacy Committee meeting February 8-9 in Washington DC, Colien expressed the hope that the experiment station directors would be partners in designing the implementation of such a program. She also indicated she hopes that there are guidelines for such a program by mid summer so that, should the program be passed by Congress, units could do planning and prepare proposals so awards could be made early in the fiscal year.
The EDs have each held call ins with the members of their respective associations. Basically, the SAES directors are opposed to implementation of the President's plan to change the manner in which funds within Hatch are distributed to the units. As a consequence, we recommend that the ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee be charged to interact with CSREES to discuss Hatch funding. We further recommend that for purposes of these discussions, the B/L Committee be expanded to include all of the association EDs and an additional two directors from each region (to assure widespread input across the regions).
Elements of the President's FY 07 budget that most affect Agricultural Experiment Stations:
The BAA Budget and Advocacy Committee met in Washington DC February 8 and 9 to put the final touches on the NASULGC family requests for FY 07. In the interests of ESS, the final request needed of necessity to take into account the President's proposal regarding Hatch, McIntire-Stennis, Animal Health and Disease, the NRI, and the Section 406 accounts. In the final deliberations at the February 8-9 meeting, the BAC agreed to support the President's recommendations in each of these areas. In response to the SAES directors' response to the action of the BAC, the BAC is conducting a call in on Wednesday, February 22.
So that you are aware of what is in the President's budget that directly affects the Experiment Stations, here is a brief summary.
1. Hatch appropriations: The President's budget proposes the following:
1.The current amount of the combined Hatch and Hatch/Multistate would remain the same.
2.In FY07, 35% of Hatch (excluding the multistate) would be moved from the formula distribution to a competitive Hatch/Multistate program with 5-year, no-overhead, grants to successful multi-institutional, multi-state applicants who are part of the Land Grant system (i.e. existing recipients of Hatch funds). The remainder of Hatch funds including the 25% of Hatch distributed as Multistate would be distributed by formula in '07.
3.In FY08, whatever portion of the existing Hatch/Multistate formula fund projects that expire would free up additional funds to be placed into the competitive Hatch/Multistate grant program. Attrition due to expiration from the current Hatch/Multistate formula system set of projects would continue for 5 years, at which time a full 55.6% of all Hatch and Hatch/Multistate funds would be distributed through the competitive process. Since this would be a proposal based approach, it would be conceivable to eliminate the POW requirements for this program and simply have pre and post award requirements.
4.The residual 44.4% Hatch formula funds would continue to be distributed according to the existing formula and would require the same project system that is currently in place, with approved Plans of Work, etc.
2. McIntire-Stennis: The President proposed distributing 59% of the funds as a multistate program. All funds would be competitively awarded. Details of the program would be worked out with input and participation from the affected units.
3. Animal Health and Disease: These funds would be eliminated. Colien indicated that in the last couple of years the agency has built the NRI investment in research in animal health and disease from $7M to the current investment of $30M. It has also been clear from OMB that they are unalterably opposed to distributing this relatively small amount of money over so many units. Colien indicated that the $5M could be put into the NRI specified for animal health and disease research.
4. NRI: The President has proposed increasing the NRI to $247.5M, up from $181.17M. This increase includes $42.3M from the Section 406 authority and $5M from animal health and disease.
5. Section 406 authority: The President has proposed reallocating the section 406 account money ($42.3M) into the NRI. We have agreed to ask that these funds be earmarked within the NRI for the same programmatic areas as they now serve.
Click here for the association's responses to the President's FY 07 Hatch Proposal
BAC Teleconference Call Results
On February 22, the BAC reconsidered the action it took February 8-9 regarding
the President's FY 07 budget. Bob Steele, Chair of the BAC, reviewed the current
situation, the reaction of the system to the President's proposal regarding
disposition of funds, and observed the following:
1. The system is not willing to enter into the proposed changes in distribution of funds without additional knowledge of how the new funding mechanisms would work.
2. There was real doubt that the new funding mechanisms could be put in place by October 1, 2006.
3. The system is not saying no change but rather that it wants to be a part of defining the future and long term solutions.
With these introductory comments, the following motion (not the official final draft of the motion) was made and passed unanimously:
The BAC amends its earlier position to state we do not support the President's budget pertaining to administering or eliminating funds in Hatch, McIntire-Stennis, Animal Health and Disease, and Section 406.
In the discussion that followed, the BAC recommended that the NASULGC sections continue to have discussion with CSREES to design support funding for research, education and extension. It was pointed out that this change will not affect the lobbying effort. The system can still point out that it is engaged in CREATE 21 to develop and design such a system of support. Finally the point was made that these types of changes should be introduced through the Farm Bill, not by fiat of the administration.
The BAC supports the NRI at the President's level (even though the system does not support putting the Section 406 funding into the NRI), and supports increasing Animal Health and Disease funding from $5M to $5.5M
In meeting comments:
Action Requested: Charge the B/L Committee (with expanded membership of all the EDs and 2 additional representatives from each of the 4 geographical regions) to interact with the CSREES in considering the President's proposal for a multistate, competitively-awarded proposal program for a portion of Hatch funds
Action Taken: EDs will facilitate the effort, not for the purpose of negotiating the President's budget but to develop some method to implement parts thereof; appointments (two directors and the ED from each region- 15 folks) to be made next week or soon thereafter, with appropriate action taking place ASAP.
Item: ESCOP Communication & Marketing Committee
Presenter: Jerry Arkin and Tom Fretz
In meeting comments:
Action Requested: None
Item: ESCOP Science & Technology Committee
Presenter: Eric Young
1. Science Roadmap for Agriculture Addendum
The S&T Committee is working with a science writer at NCSU and a publication designer at U of Hawaii to develop a one-page addendum to the Roadmap for distribution to the LGU system, USDA, and other partners. The addendum will include some highlights from the Roadmap survey done last year and the modified, prioritized challenge areas and objectives.
2. Next S&T Committee meeting will be April 24-25, 2006 in Cincinnati, OH.
In meeting comments:
Action Requested: Information only.
Item: NRI Survey Priorities
Presenter: Mike Harrington
An electronic survey of the relative priority of the current NRI programs was conducted January 6 to Feb 10, 2006. The survey was organized using the revised Science Roadmap Challenges, with each NRI program was assigned to a challenge; however, there were several programs that applied to more than one challenge.
The survey used the 2006 NRI Request for Application on October 17, 2005 which provided details of the 32 specific program areas organized into five program clusters. Directors were sent complete program descriptions as background information.
Directors were asked to http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?p=WEB224RNPS9ASS and to rank each program as high, medium, low priority or no opinion within each challenge. Directors were asked to suggest new programs that could be added to each challenge.
Complete data can be viewed at http://www.zoomerang.com/reports/public_report.zgi?ID=L22GEYQMRDG8, the password is "ESCOP-NRI".
Thirty eight (38) responses were recorded as follows: ARD 1, NERA 7, NCRA 7, SAAESD 11, and WAAESD 12. Data can be sorted to arrive at regional priorities.
Initial review of the results indicates that there are programs that are clearly of high priority. There are also programs that do not rank as highly and may be of lower priority.
Recommendations: The responses should be further analyzed to determine if
there are any new programs that can be recommended to CSREES for addition
to the NRI. Similarly those programs that appear to be of low priority should
be identified as candidates for reduction in funding or deletion from the
NRI. Some consideration should be given to the shear number of programs in
the NRI. Are there too many? Is there enough money to adequately address all
programs and in turn make a real impact? Some consideration should also be
given to the apparently unilateral decision to run some programs on an alternate
year basis. Once these analyses are completed, a set of recommendation should
be forwarded to CSREES.
Click here for the 2006 ESCOP Survey of NRI Program Priorities results
In meeting comments:
Action Requested: Assignment to S&T for further analysis and development of recommendations
Action Taken: None
Item: SAES/ARD Workshop -
Presenter: Ron Pardini and Mike Harrington
2006 Experiment Station Section Meeting
The 2006 Experiment Station Section Meeting will take place Sunday, September 24 through Wednesday, September 27, 2006 at Harrah's Lake Tahoe in Nevada. Please make your hotel reservations directly by calling 1-800-455-4770 and using group code S09NAES to identify the group rate and block of rooms. The room rate for this block is $109.00, plus 10% occupancy tax. This block of rooms with the special rate will only be held until 8/25/06.
Information regarding the specifics of the meeting, including agenda and meeting registration, will be available at http://www.ag.unr.edu/naes/ess2006.htm in April. An update will go out at that time.
We look forward to seeing you in Nevada.
In meeting comments:
Action Requested: Information only.
Item: Open Discussion/Other Business
In meeting comments:
Action Requested: None