CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska’s senior U.S. Senator, served two terms in the U.S. Senate. Senator HAGEL’s duties included membership on four Senate committees: Foreign Relations; Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; Intelligence; and Rules.

CHUCK HAGEL is the author of ‘‘America: Our Next Chapter,’’ a straightforward examination of the current state of our Nation that provides substantial proposals for the challenges of the 21st century.

Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate, HAGEL worked in the private sector as the president of McCarthy & Co., an investment banking firm based in Omaha, NE, and served as chairman of the board of American Information Systems (AIS). Before joining McCarthy & Co., HAGEL was president and chief executive officer of the Private Sector Council (PSC) in Washington, DC, deputy director and chief operating officer of the 1990 Economic Summit of Industrialized Nations (G–7 Summit) and president and chief executive officer of the World USO.

In the mid-1980s, HAGEL co-founded VANGUARD Cellular Systems, Inc., a publicly traded corporation. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan nominated HAGEL to serve as Deputy Administrator of the Veterans’ Administration, a nomination confirmed by the U.S. Senate. HAGEL also served as Deputy Commissioner General of the United States for the 1982 World’s Fair. From 1977 through 1980, CHUCK HAGEL was manager of government affairs for the Firestone Tire & Rubber Company in Washington, DC. From 1971 to 1977, he was administrative assistant to Congressman John Y. McCollister (R-Nebraska). Beginning in 1969, HAGEL worked as a newscaster and talk show host with radio stations KBON and KLNG in Omaha, NE.

CHUCK HAGEL served in Vietnam with his brother Tom in 1968. They served side by side as infantry squad leaders with the U.S. Army’s 9th Infantry Division. HAGEL earned many military decorations and honors, including two Purple Hearts.

Land is a renewable resource, though one that is highly susceptible to degradation by erosion, salinization, compaction, ground water depletion, and other processes. When such processes are not adequately managed, land productivity can be mined like a nonrenewable resource. But this need not occur. For most agriculturalland, various conservation options are available. Traditionally, however, farmers and ranchers have viewed many of the conservation technologies as uneconomical. Must conservation and production always be opposed, or can technology be used to help meet both goals?

This report describes the major processes degrading land productivity, assesses whether productivity is sustainable using current agricultural technologies, reviews a range of new technologies with potentials to maintain productivity and profitability simultaneously, and presents a series of options for congressional consideration. The study was requested by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and endorsed by the House Agriculture Committee, the Senate Appropriations Committee, and the Subcommittee on Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Advisory Panel:

David Pimentel, Chairman Department of Entomology, Cornell University Delmar Akerlund Akerlund Farm Biological Enterprises Valley, Nebr. Steve Brunson National Association of Conservation Districts William Dietrich Green Giant Co. James V. Drew School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management and Agricultural Experiment Station University of Alaska George R. Hawkes Product Environmental Affairs Ortho-Chevron Chemical Co. Earl O. Heady Department of Economics Iowa State University John H. Herman Attorney at Law Dayton, Herman, Graham & Getts Maureen K. Hinkle National Audubon Society William H. Hinton Farmer Fleetwood, Pa. iv Garry D. McKenzie Division of Polar Programs National Science Foundation William R. Meiners Resource Planning and Management Associates, Inc. Meridian, Idaho John Moland, Jr. Center for Social Research Southern University Richard E. Rominger Department of Food and Agriculture State of California Edwin L. Schmidt Department of Soil Science University of Minnesota F. C. Stickler Product and Market Planning Deere & Co. Glover B. Triplett, Jr. Department of Agronomy Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Ralph Wong Rancher Marana, Ariz.

The five sources of income to the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund are (1) the portion of federal fuel taxes attributable to motorboat fuel from the Highway Trust Fund; (2) annual tax receipts attributable to small engine fuel used for outdoor power equipment from the Highway Trust Fund; (3) annual receipts from a manufacturers’ excise tax on sport fishing equipment; (4) annual receipts from import duties on fishing tackle and on yachts and pleasure craft; and (5) interest on funds invested prior to disbursal. Total FY2008 income from these five sources was approximately $708 million.

The eight efforts funded from the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund are (1) three coastal wetlands conservation and restoration programs; (2) recreational boating safety; (3) construction of sewage pump-out and dump stations for recreational vessel sewage disposal; (4) construction of docking facilities for large transient recreational vessels; (5) national aquatic resource outreach and communications; (6) multi-state conservation grants; (7) interstate fishery commissions and the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council; and (8) state grants for sport fish restoration projects.

Proposals under discussion by Congress for reauthorizing federal surface transportation programs, required by the end of FY2009, include an increase (possibly more than doubling) of the 18.4 cents-per-gallon federal fuel tax to better fund highway infrastructure programs through the Highway Trust Fund. The 111th Congress may decide whether the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund receives substantial benefits (possibly exceeding an additional $350 million annually) from an increase in the federal fuel tax. A corollary set of questions focuses on whether, and if so how, the various programs supported by the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund might be modified to expend increased receipts, should a federal fuel tax increase be enacted.

On November 21, 2006, the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the dispute panel’s report, which ruled that a moratorium had existed, that bans on EU-approved GE crops in six EU member countries violated WTO rules, and that the EU failed to ensure that its approval procedures were conducted without “undue delay.” The EU announced it would not appeal the ruling. The United States and EU agreed on November 21, 2007 (subsequently extended to January 11, 2008), as a deadline for EU implementation of the panel report. On January 11, 2008, the U.S. Trade Representative announced that, while it was reserving its rights to retaliate, it would hold off seeking a compliance ruling while the United States sought to normalize trade in biotechnology products with the EU.

In the meantime, co-complainants Canada (July 15, 2009) and Argentina (March 18, 2010) have reached “final settlements” in the biotech dispute with the EU. Canada, Argentina, and the EU notified the DSB of their mutually agreed solution under Article 3.6 of the DSU. The parties agreed to establish a bilateral dialogue on agricultural biotech market access issues of mutual interest.

U.S. agricultural and trade officials continue to criticize the EU for its biotech approval processes. During the second session of the 111th Congress, Members with agricultural interests may debate the issue of whether to continue a dialogue with the EU on re-establishing trade in biotechnology products or to seek retaliation for presumed lack of EU compliance with the panel decision.

In order to provide a regular supplement to crop insurance and NAP payments, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246, the 2008 farm bill) included authorization and funding for five new disaster programs to cover losses through FY2011. The largest of the new programs is the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments Program (SURE), which is designed to compensate eligible producers for a portion of crop losses that are not eligible for an indemnity payment under the crop insurance program.

The 2008 farm bill also authorized three new livestock assistance programs and a tree assistance program. The Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP) compensates ranchers at a rate of 75% of market value for livestock mortality caused by a disaster. The Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP) assists ranchers who graze livestock on drought-affected pastureland or grazing land. The Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP) compensates producers for disaster losses not covered under other disaster programs. Finally, the Tree Assistance Program (TAP) provides payments to eligible orchardists and nursery tree growers to cover 70% of the cost of replanting trees or nursery stock following a natural disaster. For individual producers, combined payments under SURE, LIP, LFP, and ELAP may not exceed $100,000. For TAP, a separate limit of $100,000 per year per producer applies.

The new programs are designed to address the ad hoc nature of disaster assistance provided to producers during the last two decades. Since 1988, Congress has regularly made emergency financial assistance available to farmers and ranchers, primarily in the form of crop disaster payments and livestock assistance.

Following widespread crop losses in 2009 due to excessive rain, legislation was introduced in late 2009 in both chambers (S. 2810 and H.R. 4177) to make emergency payments to producers for losses in calendar year 2009. The Senate Finance Committee subsequently attached emergency agricultural assistance to the House-passed version of the Tax Extenders Act of 2009 (H.R. 4213). The Senate amended and passed the bill on March 10, 2010. The House is now considering the Senate-passed version. The legislation would provide a supplemental “direct payment” to producers in designated disaster counties who receive direct payments for crops under the 2008 farm bill (e.g., wheat, corn, upland cotton, rice, peanuts, and soybeans). The threshold for loss due to a natural disaster is 5%, much lower than historical norms, and the payment would be 90% of a farm’s direct payment in 2009. (The loss threshold compares with previous disaster programs that typically paid for losses in excess of 35% at 65% of established prices.) Provisions are also included for payments to specialty crop producers ($300 million), producers and first handlers of cottonseed ($42 million), and aquaculture producers ($25 million) for high feed costs in 2009. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the total cost at $1.48 billion.

A key question likely to be asked of virtually every new proposal is how it will affect U.S. commitments under the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture (AA), which commits the United States to spend no more than $19.1 billion annually on domestic farm support programs most likely to distort trade. The AA spells out the rules for countries to determine whether their policies are potentially trade-distorting, and to calculate the costs. This report describes the steps for making these determinations.

An issue for Congress is what should be the appropriate title, rank, role, and responsibilities of OSTP’s Director. Some in the science and technology community contend that by providing the OSTP Director with cabinet rank, that individual would have more influence within the EOP. Others have proposed that the OSTP Director play a greater role in ensuring federal agency scientists and engineers are able to communicate their findings, and in federal agency coordination, priority-setting, and budget allocation. Another question is who should decide the issue focus of OSTP Associate Directors, NSTC interagency coordination activities, and PCAST.

On December 20, 2008, President Obama stated his intention to appoint Dr. John Holdren as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), OSTP Director, and Co-Chair of PCAST. At the same time, he said that “promoting science isn’t just about providing resources— it’s about protecting free and open inquiry.” In his inauguration speech on January 20, 2009, President Obama stated, “We’ll restore science to its rightful place.” Since his inauguration, President Obama has issued executive orders, presidential directives, and executive memorandum regarding OSTP and APST position, including appointing the OSTP Director to the Domestic Policy Council, providing the OSTP director the ability to attend National Security Council meetings when science and technology related issues are on the agenda, and requiring the OSTP Director to develop recommendations for Presidential action designed to guarantee scientific integrity throughout the executive branch. In addition, he revoked Executive Order 13422 concerning regulatory planning and review (which some believe allowed OMB to conduct a political review of scientific documents).

During his Senate nomination hearing, Dr. Holdren discussed plans to appoint four Associate Directors. One Associate Director would focus on each of the following: science, technology, environment, and national security and international affairs. He also discussed his goal of reviving and utilizing the NSTC, and the potential role of the new Chief Technology Officer. On the issue of federal scientists and engineers ability to communicate their findings to the public, Dr. Holdren discussed his goal of clarifying policies in response to the America COMPETES Act. This would include disseminating research results; developing appeal processes; and providing training to managers, researchers and public information staffs on those policies. Dr. Holdren’s nomination as OSTP Director was confirmed by the Senate on March 19, 2009.

Much of the debate about developing and commercializing carbon capture technology has focused on the role of research, development, and deployment (technology-push mechanisms). However, for technology to be fully commercialized, it must also meet a market demand—a demand created either through a price mechanism or a regulatory requirement (demand-pull mechanisms). Any conceivable carbon capture technology for coal-fired power plants will increase the cost of electricity generation from affected plants because of efficiency losses. Therefore, few companies are likely to install such technology until they are required to, either by regulation or by a carbon price. Regulated industries may find their regulators reluctant to accept the risks and cost of installing technology that is not required.

The Department of Energy (DOE) has invested millions of dollars since 1997 in carbon capture technology research and development (R&D), and the question remains whether it has been too much, too little, or about the right amount. In addition to appropriating funds each year for the DOE program, Congress supported R&D investment through provisions for loan guarantees and tax credits. Congress also authorized a significant expansion of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) spending at DOE in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Funding for carbon capture technology has increased substantially as a result of enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Legislation introduced in the 111th and 110th Congresses invokes the symbolism of the Manhattan project of the 1940s and the Apollo program of the 1960s to frame proposals for large-scale energy policy initiatives that include developing CCS technology. However, commercialization of technology and integration of technology into the private market were not goals of either the Manhattan project or Apollo program.

Finally, it should be noted that the status quo for coal with respect to climate change legislation isn’t necessarily the same as “business as usual.” The financial markets and regulatory authorities appear to be hedging their bets on the outcomes of any federal legislation with respect to greenhouse gas reductions, and becoming increasingly unwilling to accept the risk of a coal-fired power plant with or without carbon capture capacity. The lack of a regulatory scheme presents numerous risks to any research and development effort designed to develop carbon capture technology. Ultimately, it also presents a risk to the future of coal.

Some have described nanotechnology as a two-edged sword. On the one hand, some are concerned that nanoscale particles may enter and accumulate in vital organs, such as the lungs and brains, potentially causing harm or death to humans and animals, and that the diffusion of nanoscale particles in the environment might harm ecosystems. On the other hand, some believe that nanotechnology has the potential to deliver important EHS benefits such as reducing energy consumption, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions; remediating environmental damage; curing, managing, or preventing diseases; and offering new safety-enhancing materials that are stronger, self-repairing, and able to adapt to provide protection.

Stakeholders generally agree that concerns about potential detrimental effects of nanoscale materials and devices—both real and perceived—must be addressed to protect and improve human health, safety, and the environment; enable accurate and efficient risk assessment, risk management, and cost-benefit trade-offs; foster innovation and public confidence; and ensure that society can enjoy the widespread economic and societal benefits that nanotechnology may offer. Congressionally-mandated reviews of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) by the National Research Council and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology have concluded that additional research is required to make a rigorous risk assessment of nanoscale materials.

Some studies suggest that the American West may be in transition to a more arid climate, raising concerns that the region may become more prone to extreme drought than was the norm during most of the 20th century. While drought is most common in the West, drought can also provoke water resource conflicts in other parts of the country. For example, the 2007-2008 drought in the Southeast has heightened a long-standing dispute over water in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee- Flint River basin, even though the three states at odds with each other—Georgia, Alabama, and Florida—receive more rainfall in dry years than many western states receive in average years.

The physical conditions causing drought in the United States are increasingly understood to be linked to sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the tropical Pacific Ocean. Studies indicate that cooler-than-average SSTs have been connected to the recent severe western drought, severe droughts of the late 19th century, and precolonial North American “megadroughts.” Some climate model projections suggest that warming temperatures resulting from increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could return the western United States within decades to more arid baseline conditions similar to those during earlier times.

The prospect of extended droughts and more arid baseline conditions in parts of the United States could suggest new challenges to federal water projects, the construction of which was based largely on 20th century climate conditions. In responding to competing demands for water, such as deliveries to serve agricultural demands, municipal needs, endangered species, and others, federal water delivery systems may have to be re-tuned to match a drier average climate in the West. As a further complication, federal, state, and local authorities make water resource decisions within the context of multiple and often conflicting laws and objectives, competing legal decisions, and entrenched institutional mechanisms.

The evolving nature of drought, split federal and non-federal responsibilities, and a patchwork of federal programs and congressional committee jurisdictions make development of a comprehensive national drought policy difficult. Although Congress has considered some of the recommendations issued by the National Drought Policy Commission in 2000, comprehensive drought legislation has not been enacted. Congress may move to review how federal agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation have responded to recent droughts in the Southeast, West, and Northwest to help assess whether the National Drought Policy Commission’s recommendations are still relevant.

Wind energy has become increasingly competitive with other power generation options. Wind technology has improved significantly over the past two decades. CRS analysis presented here shows that wind energy still depends on federal tax incentives to compete, but that key uncertainties like climate policy, fossil fuel prices, and technology progress could dominate future cost competitiveness.

A key challenge for wind energy is that electricity production depends on when winds blow rather than when consumers need power. Wind’s variability can create added expenses and complexity in balancing supply and demand on the grid. Recent studies imply that these integration costs do not become significant (5-10% of wholesale prices) until wind turbines account for 15-30% of the capacity in a given control area. Another concern is that new transmission infrastructure will be required to send the wind-generated power to demand centers. Building new lines can be expensive and time-consuming, and there are debates over how construction costs should be allocated among end-users and which pricing methodologies are best.

Opposition to wind power arises for environmental, aesthetic, or aviation security reasons. New public-private partnerships have been established to address more comprehensively problems with avian (bird and bat) deaths resulting from wind farms. Some stakeholders oppose the construction of wind plants for visual reasons, especially in pristine or highly-valued areas. A debate over the potential for wind turbines to interfere with aviation radar emerged in 2006, but most experts believe any possible problems are economically and technically manageable.

Federal wind power policy has centered primarily on the production tax credit (PTC), a business incentive to operate wind facilities. The PTC is set to expire on December 31, 2008. Analysts and wind industry representatives argue that the onagain off-again nature of the PTC is inefficient and leads to higher costs for the industry. While there is often bipartisan support for the PTC in Congress, debate centers more fundamentally on how to offset its revenue losses. A federal renewable portfolio standard — which would mandate wind power levels — was rejected in the Senate in late 2007; its future is uncertain.

If wind is to supply up to 20% of the nation’s power by 2030, as suggested by a recent U.S. Department of Energy report, additional federal policies will likely be required to overcome barriers, and ensure development of an efficient wind market.

The America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) addresses concerns regarding the S&T workforce and STEM education, and the 111th Congress is debating funding for the programs authorized within it. Policymaker discussions tend to focus on three issues: demographic trends and the future S&T talent pool, the current S&T workforce and changing workforce needs, and the influence of foreign S&T students and workers on the U.S. S&T workforce. Many perspectives exist, however, on the supply and demand of scientists and engineers. Some question the fundamental premise that any action is necessary at all regarding U.S. competitiveness. They question whether or not the S&T workforce and STEM education are problems at all.

The first issue of demographic trends and the future S&T talent pool revolves around whether the quality of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education received by all Americans at the pre-college level is of sufficient quality that workers are available to satisfy current and future workforce needs. In response, some policymakers propose taking actions to increase the number of Americans interested in the S&T workforce. These policies are motivated by demographic trends that indicate the pool of future workers will be far more diverse than the current STEM workforce. Proposed policies would take actions to enhance the quality of STEM education these Americans receive so they are able to consider S&T careers, and to recruit them into the S&T workforce.

The second issue regarding the current S&T workforce and changing workforce needs tend to focus on whether or not the number of Americans pursuing post-secondary STEM degrees is sufficient to meet future workforce needs compared to students in countries considered to be U.S. competitors. The goal of proposed policies responding to this concern to reinvigorate and retrain Americans currently trained in science and engineering who voluntarily or involuntarily are no longer part of the current STEM workforce.

The third issue focuses on whether or not the presence of foreign S&T students and workers is necessary to meet the nation’s workforce needs and attract the best and brightest to bring their ideas to the United States, or if the presence of such individuals adversely affects the U.S. S&T students and workers. Policy discussions focus on immigration policy, primarily increasing the ability of foreign STEM students currently in U.S. universities to more easily obtain permanent admission, and increasing the number of temporary worker visas available so more talent from abroad can be recruited to the United States.

The challenge facing policymakers when making decisions regarding the S&T workforce is that science, engineering, and economic conditions are constantly changing, both in terms of workforce needs as well as the skills the STEM workforce needs to be marketable relative to demand.

Title V of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY1979 (P.L. 95-426) provides the current legislative guidance for U.S. international S&T policy. This act states that Department of State (DOS) is the lead federal agency in developing S&T agreements. The National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-282) states that the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is to advise the President on international S&T cooperation policies and the role of S&T considerations in foreign relations. DOS sets the overall policy direction for U.S. international S&T diplomacy, and works with other federal agencies as needed. OSTP acts as a interagency liaison. A number of federal agencies that both sponsor research and use S&T in developing policy are involved in international S&T policy.

A fundamental question is why the United States should invest in international S&T diplomacy instead of domestic research and development (R&D) and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education (STEM) activities, which are facing budget constraints. If Congress should decide that funding international S&T activities is important, agreeing on a policy goal beyond enhancing the country’s development, such as improving U.S. relations with other countries, or enhancing popular opinion of the United States may help set priorities.

Policy options identified for Congress by expert committees who have assessed U.S. international S&T diplomacy efforts include ensuring a baseline of science, engineering, and technical (SET) literacy among all appropriate DOS personnel, increasing the presence overseas of personnel with significant SET expertise, and expanding the Department’s engagement within global SET networks through exchanges, assistance, and joint research activities addressing key global issues. Other proposed actions include increasing USAID support that builds S&T capacity in developing countries, and orienting other departments and agencies S&T developing country programs to support the development priorities of the host countries. Another proposal would establish a new U.S. government organization called the “Development Applications Research Institute” (DARI) to develop and apply innovative technologies to development problems. In all of these efforts, Congress might wish to consider enhancing the prominence of the STAS, and coordination among S&T leaders at OES, STAS, and OSTP.

On June 4, 2009, President Obama announced several international S&T diplomacy programs in Muslim-majority countries including a new fund for technological development in these countries, establishing centers of scientific excellence, and appointing new science envoys. On June 8, 2009, the House passed the International Science and Technology Cooperation Act of 2009 (H.R. 1736), which would require the OSTP Director to establish an interagency committee to identify and coordinate international science and technology cooperation.