House Appropriations Subcommittees Hearings regarding FY 2012

House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies

On Tuesday, March 1, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies held a hearing with Secretary Tom Vilsack at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to discuss the President’s proposed fiscal year (FY) 2012 budget for the USDA. The subcommittee is examining USDA’s spending and discussing how to proceed throughout the remainder of FY 2011 and into FY 2012. The President’s FY 2012 budget request $130 billion dollars, which is a $3 billion dollar reduction from the FY 2011 annualized continuing resolution.

When asked about how H.R. 1 and the President’s FY 2012 budget request would influence USDA research funding, Vilsack raised the issue of Congress’ and the Administration’s elimination of earmarks, which have previously funded a portion of USDA research and research facilities. There is no doubt that with earmark elimination, research funding will be reduced overall.

Secretary Vilsack stated that in this time of budget constraints, careful prioritization of funding for programs will be critical, saying that each budget decision will be a “shared sacrifice and shared opportunity”.

In addition to research, the Secretary and members of the committee discussed issues of rural development, market opportunities, the farm bill, conservation, food safety, domestic nutrition, and food-aid programs.

Interior and Environment Subcommittee

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before the House Appropriations Interior and Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Thursday, March 9. During the hearing, Jackson was questioned about the EPA’s budget request for FY 2012, with the topics of EPA’s ability to regulated greenhouse gases and expansion of its jurisdiction over state waters surfacing fueling heated debate.

Throughout Jackson’s tenure as EPA Administrator there has been much controversy regarding EPA’s regulatory role, the Administrator often being criticized for a regulatory overreach that will have a negative impact on the US economy. According to chairman of the subcommittee Mike Simpson (R, 2^nd ID), “It should be up to Congress, not the Administration, to determine whether and how to regulate greenhouse gases.” During the hearing, Chairman Simpson supported the funding reductions for the EPA that are included in the continuing resolution, H.R. 1. The provisions in H.R. 1 will reduce EPA funding by 30% for the remaining portion of the current fiscal year. Note: there are 22 amendments included in H.R. 1 that would limit funding for EPA and its regulations, according to Simpson.

Amidst the criticism, Administrator Jackson received strong words of support from Congressman Norm Dicks (D, 6^th WA) as his opening statement referred to the passage of critical environmental legislation during the Nixon Administration in comparison to the volatile nature of the current bipartisan political environment. At the end of his remarks he stood from his chair and emphatically told Jackson, “Don’t be intimidated—Do your job.”

House Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Administrator Charles Bolden defended the agency’s Earth Science program to House Appropriators on the Subcommittee for Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Thursday, March 3. The discussion centered on NASA’s request for $1.8 billion for the Earth Science program in NASA’s FY 2012 proposed budget. That request represents at 25% increase from the current funding levels. The increase in funding will be used, in part, to develop and commence two missions, one of which is to measure soil moisture.

Bolden was questioned about any duplication or overlap of NASA’s earth science research and that of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and United States Geological Survey (USGS). “Everything we do in earth science is unique to NASA,” Bolden stated explaining that NASA is responsible for the development of satellites that are used to generate earth science data contributing to NOAA and USGS earth science and climate science research. Bolden also cited a U.S. Government Accountability Office study from 2009 which determined no duplication between NASA and NOAA in their earth science research.

During the hearing, Bolden defended NASA’s earth science efforts and reminded the subcommittee members that the NASA Mission Statement included in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 began with the words “To advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the Earth”.

--Reported by Catherine Swoboda, SSSA's Science Policy Intern

The Year of Your Life--ASA, CSSA, and SSSA's Congressional Science Fellowship

The American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) Congressional Science Fellowship (CSF) administered by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) was undoubtedly the most educational and rewarding year that I have experienced in my career thus far. Before applying for the CSF, I wanted to learn the process of how science influenced policy and vice versa—I have always believed that science is incredibly important in addressing world challenges, and I wanted to use my scientific skills and awareness while working in Congress. I was honored to serve as the ASA, CSSA, and SSSA CSF from 2009-2010 and selectively placed in Senator Richard Durbin’s (IL) office.

As a fellow, my role was to distill complex scientific information into usable policy recommendations. I was called upon for help with all scientific issues, but my daily responsibilities were for energy and environmental legislation. In an affectionate way, the staff and the Senator often called me “The Scientist.” I was the only person in an office of approximately 50 employees that had an advanced scientific degree. The majority of Senators and Hill staffers have law and or policy backgrounds. Thus, with my scientific background, I was able to provide these very intelligent people with a new perspective. They benefited from my investigative thinking, and I benefited by engaging in the most dynamic, real-world civics class imaginable. My daily tasks were diverse and included:

• briefing the Senator,
• drafting new legislation,
• building consensus behind the scenes on Senate votes,
• providing guidance for millions of dollars of appropriations money,
• inter-mediating between stakeholder interest groups and the federal agencies,
• writing talking points for the Senator to be used at public events and on the Senate floor,
• staffing the Senator at hearings,
• tracking the news and learning the stories before they hit the press,
• and helping constituent concerns.

The most memorable days at work were when I would teach the Senator about a scientific issue and then I would hear him describing this science to his fellow Senators. In summary, I highly recommend the ASA, CSSA, and SSSA CSF to all scientists, no matter the stage in your career. There is no better place to put to use the scientific process than in our country’s democratic system.

--Dr. Julie DeMeester

• From left to right, Senator Roland Burris (D-IL), Dr. DeMeester, and Senator Durbin (D-IL) are pictured above.
• The deadline for applying to the ASA, CSSA, and SSSA CSF is March 29, 2011. Please see more information here.

McClintock Amendments Threaten Biological and Environmental Research program in the DOE

Funding for the Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program in the DOE Office of Science is in serious jeopardy if the recently proposed McClintock Amendments (#304 and #305) to H.R. 1, proposed by House Republicans on February 11, come to pass. H.R. 1 cuts the DOE Office of Science funding by $886 million from its FY10 funding level and caps funding for the BER program at $302 million (roughly half of the $604 million appropriated for BER in FY10). Therefore, about $302 million of the $886 million cut from FY10 funding levels for the Office of Science must come from BER. This will half the BER budget, crippling the program having an undoubted effect on the research BER supports related to bioenergy and bio-based chemicals, the bioremediation of contaminated soil and water, and research to improve our understanding of the climate system.

The BER’s mission is to advance world-class biological and environmental research programs and scientific user facilities to support DOE’s energy, environment, and basic research missions. According to its priorities, the BER program supports research to develop biofuels, understand relationships between climate change and Earth’s ecosystems, assess options for carbon sequestration, predict fate and transport of subsurface contaminants, and develop tools to explore the interface of biological and physical sciences.

Specifically, the McClintock Amendments will eliminate:

- Approximately $184 million in university-based fundamental research and technology development on genome-based systems biology involving plant and microbial systems for bioenergy, carbon cycling, and environmental biogeochemistry as well as basic climate research in the areas of cloud and aerosol science, climate modeling, and soil and terrestrial ecosystem science.

- Basic research concerning the development of cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels by terminating DOE’s 3 Bioenergy Research Centers (BioEnergy Science Center (BESC) at Oak Ridge National Lab, the Joint BioEnergy Institute (JBEI) at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, and the Great Lakes BioEnergy Research Center (GLBRC) at the University of Wisconsin).

- The Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, displacing over 700 users from 35 states and around the world who research molecular science as a part of DOE environmental remediation and energy research programs.

- Unique scientific instrumentation at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) research facility, ending operation of three fixed and two mobile sties that collect invaluable climate change science data on atmospheric radiation that is shared with over 1300 researchers globally working to better our understanding of the climate system.

- The Joint Genome Institute at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (operated in partnership with ORNL, PPPL, LLNL, and LANL). This institute is the sole facility in the world committed to non-health related genomic sequencing for energy and other research disciplines, whose 2000 users characterize organisms in the areas of bioenergy, global carbon cycling, and biogeochemistry, and has generated extraordinary DNA sequence data (in FY10 alone, over five trillion nucleotides).

Insight into the State of the Union

President Obama’s State of the Union Address, Winning the Future, focused on innovation, building entrepreneurial opportunities, creating jobs, reducing the debt, investing in renewable energy, and bipartisanship. With so many different themes it takes a little time to tease out the threads related to the agronomic, crop, and soil sciences. Nonetheless, there were a couple of interesting references which provide insight into the plans of the Administration and reflect discussions that will occur in the 112th Congress.

Subjects related to agronomic, crop, and soil science:

#1. Innovation fueled by investments in science: One of most poignant statements in the address was when the President said that “because it’s not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout our history, our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need.” This reflects a continued commitment to capitalize on the U.S.’s public sector research and development enterprise; a commitment that began almost one and a half years prior during a speech at the National Academies. At the Academies, the President pledged to “devote more than 3 percent of (U.S.) GDP to research and development.” In 2009, 3% of the US GDP would have been about $423.6 Billion. Here at the Science Policy Office, we are anxious to see what that means for agricultural, crop, and soil science funding in the President’s budget proposal that is slated to be released on February 14.

#2. Grand challenges: The ASA, CSSA, and SSSA have all responded to the request of the Office of Science and Technology by developing “grand challenges” which need to be addressed to overcome limits to food security and biofuel production and to address increased pressures on production due to climate and limited agricultural inputs. The grand challenges can be viewed here:

• American Society of Agronomy Grand Challenge
• Crop Science Society of America Grand Challenges
• Soil Science Society of America Grand Challenges

During his speech, President Obama announced that, “We're issuing a challenge. We're telling America's scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we'll fund the Apollo projects of our time.” This statement falls in line with the focus that we see with the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). (Please note that two of the seven RFAs for AFRI have been released.) While the pay-offs can be great, there are also trade-offs for doing big-science when there is little to no increases in annual appropriations. In other words, less remains for new projects and collaborations. To build on current investments, it is essential that we are effective and clear with all of our education and outreach efforts. The grand challenges were no doubt helpful in adjusting our focus. Now, we need to succinctly articulate the benefits our sciences can generate.

The research challenges that the President mentioned in his speech do not specifically relate to agriculture and the environment, however, he made several references to food and fuel production and environmental issues. Specifically, he stated that “with more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels.” pledging that “By 2035, 80 percent of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources.” These statements support Growing America’s Fuels, a strategy for developing the commercialization of a sustainable biofuels industry developed by the President’s Biofuels Inter-agency Working Group. Growing America’s Fuels has a strong crop production component to it.

Finally, the President mentioned that the U.S. is “helping farmers grow more food” around the world, a clear reference to the Administration’s initiative announced last year at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs called Feed the Future. Feed the Future is focused on scaling up U.S. Government investments and impact to accelerate progress toward achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

# 3. Education: Finally, the President emphasized education in his speech, saying that the U.S. is “home to the world's best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any place on Earth.” He continued on, pledging that “over the next 10 years…we want to prepare 100,000 new teachers in the fields of science and technology and engineering and math.” Because of the sustained focus on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), education will continue to be a focus for ASA, CSSA, and SSSA. It is important that we participate in events like the U.S. Science and Engineering Festival. (Many thanks to all of the volunteers who came out last year!) We also need to continue to meet with key federal officials to discuss the importance of agronomic, crop, and soil science in the curriculum. The National Science Foundation’s Directorate of Education and Human Resources, the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture, as well as the Department of Education will all be important to speak with to understand better how will we can recruit and train the next generation of our technical workforce? With so much focus on science and technology education, now is the ideal time to determine the best way forward.

Now, these pledges and aspirations all have a rather gray backdrop—the federal deficit. President Obama mentioned several methods that his Administration will pursue to reduce the size of the deficit while also investing in areas fundamental to growth. However, there is no question that the U.S. is at a difficult crossroads. The methods that Congress and the Administration will use to reduce spending while simultaneously investing in infrastructure, research, and education are unknown. Whatever the methods are, we will focus on tying research to innovation, economic growth, and entrepreneurial opportunities during our discussions with both the Administration and Congress during the next two years.

**Please see the PCAST (posted Jan. 13) blog post about the presentations that Drs. Woteki and Beachy gave to the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) on January 7 to learn more about USDA investments.