[House Hearing, 105 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998 ======================================================================== HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ________ SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES JOE SKEEN, New Mexico, Chairman JAMES T. WALSH, New York MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JAY DICKEY, Arkansas VIC FAZIO, California JACK KINGSTON, Georgia JOSE E. SERRANO, New York GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut HENRY BONILLA, Texas TOM LATHAM, Iowa NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Livingston, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. Timothy K. Sanders, Carol Murphy, John J. Ziolkowski, and Joanne L. Orndorff, Staff Assistants ________ PART 3 MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS AND CONSERVATION PROGRAMS Page Marketing and Regulatory Programs................................ 1 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Agriculture Marketing Service Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Natural Resources Conservation Service........................... 493 ________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 40-551 O WASHINGTON : 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana, Chairman JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois RALPH REGULA, Ohio LOUIS STOKES, Ohio JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota JOE SKEEN, New Mexico JULIAN C. DIXON, California FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia VIC FAZIO, California TOM DeLAY, Texas W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina JIM KOLBE, Arizona STENY H. HOYER, Maryland RON PACKARD, California ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JAMES T. WALSH, New York DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina NANCY PELOSI, California DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania HENRY BONILLA, Texas ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan NITA M. LOWEY, New York DAN MILLER, Florida JOSE E. SERRANO, New York JAY DICKEY, Arkansas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut JACK KINGSTON, Georgia JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia MIKE PARKER, Mississippi JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey ED PASTOR, Arizona ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington CHET EDWARDS, Texas MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, California TODD TIAHRT, Kansas ZACH WAMP, Tennessee TOM LATHAM, Iowa ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998 ---------- Tuesday, March 11, 1997. MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS WITNESSES MICHAEL DUNN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS TERRY MEDLEY, ADMINISTRATOR, ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE LON HATAMIYA, ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE JAMES R. BAKER, ADMINISTRATOR, GRAIN INSPECTION PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION STEPHEN B. DEWHURST, BUDGET OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Opening Remarks Mr. Skeen. The committee will come to order. The people who are here today start off our fourth week of budget hearings. If you'd be brief in your testimony, we would appreciate it. You usually are; and we appreciate that too. Of course, all statements will be included in full in the record. Mike, it's all yours. Mr. Dunn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to address you today. I'm pleased to appear here before you and to discuss the activities for Marketing and Regulatory Programs for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and to present its fiscal year 1998 budget. I've prepared statements and I'd like to make that a part of the record. With me today are Terry Medley, the Administrator of APHIS; Lon Hatamiya, the Administrator of Agricultural Marketing Service; and Jim Baker, Administrator of Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration; and Stephen Dewhurst from OPBA. They have written statements and we'd also like those to be a part of the record. Mr. Skeen. That will be so done. Mr. Dunn. The Marketing Regulatory Program activities are funded by both taxpayers and beneficiaries of program services. Programs are proposed to carry out $789 million of activities. Over $396 million will be funded through user fees from beneficiaries of these services. Currently, over 58 percent of the Department's user fee programs are administered by the Marketing and Regulatory Programs. These programs have been marketed, tested, and should be high performers under the Government Performance Results Act. fiscal year 1998 budget For fiscal year 1998 budget, on the discretionary side, we request a current law appropriation of $431.7 million for APHIS; $51 million for the Agricultural Marketing Service; and $25.7 million for Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards. Legislation will be submitted to recover $28 million more under user fees. That budget proposes new fees to recover the cost of administering programs in all three agencies. APHIS provides leadership in anticipating and responding to issues involving animal and plant health, conflicts with wildlife, environmental stewardship, and animal well-being. aphis--budget request APHIS' 1998 budget request proposes, under current law, is for $124 million for salaries and expenses. This compares to a fiscal year 1997 appropriation of $35 million. The budget request contains an increase of $1.3 million for Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Programs to handle the increased workload along the Mexican and Canadian borders and from Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Approximately, $9 million is requested for increased pest detection activities and will largely be devoted to the Karnal Bunt Program. The budget proposes a decrease of $3.3 million for animal damage control operations. It seeks supports from states for at least 50 percent of their total program. APHIS will use carry over funds to conduct architectural and engineering work for sterile screwworm rearing facilities to be built in Panama. Legislation will be proposed to recover the cost of providing certain activities in animal welfare, veterinary biologic, pink bollworm, biotechnology and the Swine Health Protection Act. We believe that the definable beneficiaries of these programs, rather than the general taxpayer, should pay for the services they receive. An appropriation of $7.2 million is proposed of which $3.2 coincides with the Agricultural Research Services' request to continue modernization of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center. ams--budget request Agricultural Marketing Service's fundamental mission is to facilitate the strategic marketing of agricultural products in domestic and international markets, while ensuring fair-trading practices, and promoting a competitive and efficient marketplace to the benefit of consumers of U.S. food and fiber products. In response to the changing needs of its customers, AMS has improved program deliveries and broadened the focus of its programs to incorporate a global approach service. Market news has nearly 700 reports on a daily basis available on the Internet. In response to recommendations made by the Advisory Committee on Agricultural Conservation, AMS broadened its scope of market news to include more information about cattle traded under formula, value based pricing, and regional market forces. These actions have given farmers and ranchers more tools to compete in today's marketplace which relies on timely and accurate market information. AMS continues to work closely with state programs to enhance marketing of agricultural products. AMS' 1998 budget request, under current law, is $49.8 million for the Marketing Service Program; and $1.2 million for the Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program. We are requesting an increase of $320,000 to begin market news collections in South and Central America, and Pacific Rim countries. Market surveys conducted by AMS from these areas are needed as international competition increased in the post-GATT and NAFTA economy. We are also requesting an increase of $500,000 to expand domestic market news reporting in accordance with the recommendations of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Agricultural Concentration. We are working diligently to publish a rule on theNational Organic Standards and to implement a national program. In order to meet the increased responsibility for accrediting organic certifiers and in administering the program, the AMS budget includes an increase of $505,000. We will seek to recover the cost of the program through user fees that will be deposited into the Treasury. The budget also proposed to return program funding of the pest site data program to AMS from the Environmental Protection Agency. With the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act, the Pesticide Residue Program will play a more critical role for conducting risk assessments with the registration of pesticides. gipsa--budget request Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards; its mission is to facilitate the marketing of livestock, poultry, meat, cereals, oil seed, and related agricultural products, and to promote fair and competitive trading practices for the overall benefit of consumers in American agriculture. Federal grain personnel work with 2,000 state and private inspectors to provide high quality inspection and weighing services on a user fee basis. In 1996 this unique mix of federal, state, and private inspection agencies provided 2.3 million inspections on an estimated 250 million metric tons of oil seed, issued over 118,000 official weight certificates, weighed over 114 million metric tons of grain, and met with trade teams representing 41 countries around the world to teach them about GIPSA and the U.S. grain marketing system. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Packers and Stockyards Program is located in 11 offices throughout the United States to monitor compliance with the P&S Act for approximately $95 billion of livestock, meat and poultry products. During fiscal year 1996 GIPSA targeted resources at providing financial protection, promoting fair business practices in enabling a competitive marketing environment for livestock, meat, and poultry. GIPSA's 1998 budget request, under current law, is $68.8 million, of which $25.7 million represents an appropriated funding. The remaining $43.1 million represents user fees authorities for grain inspection and weighing services. The fiscal year 1998 budget proposes legislation to authorize, subject to appropriations, the collection of $3.6 million in additional user fees to cover the cost of grain standardization activities. The grain industry is the primary beneficiary of the grain standards and should pay for these services. For P&S programs, the budget proposes $14.8 million, which includes increases of $225,000 to allow GIPSA to establish electronic filing procedures for annual reports; $1.6 million for activities in the packer competition and industry structure areas; and $750,000 for poultry compliance activities. Increasing concentration, structural change, declining market performance, and the increased use of complex formulas on the value based marketing system by packers continues to raise questions of regulatory and policy significance. Additional resources will allow GIPSA to expand its monitoring and investigating regarding the anti-competitive implications of structural change and behavioral practices in the meat packing industry. It will afford us an increased capability to support legal actions that require complex, economic, and statistical analysis. The fiscal year 1998 budget proposes legislation to authorize the collection of license fees, to administer all activities under the Packers and Stockyards Act. All meat packers, live poultry dealers, stockyard owners, market agencies, and dealers as defined in the P&S Act would be subjected to license fees. Also included in the legislative proposal regarding a statutory dealer's trust to require livestock inventories and accounts receivable due from sale of livestock to be held in trust for unpaid cash sellers when a dealer fails to pay for livestock. I appreciate the opportunity to present the budget of the Marketing and Regulatory Programs. We believe the proposed funding amounts and sources of funding will provide a level of service wanted by our customers, the agricultural producing and marketing industry, consumers, and the general public. We are happy, Mr. Chairman, to answer any questions that you might have. [Clerk's note.--Mr Dunn's written testimony appears on pages 178 through 198. Mr. Hatamiya's written testimony appears on pages 199 through 210. Mr. Medley's written testmony appears an pages 211 through 240. Mr. Baker's written testimony appears on pages 241 through 256. The witnesses biographical sketches appear on pages 174 through 177. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service budget justifications appear an pages 257 through 372. The Agricultural Marketing Service budget justifications appear on pages 373 through 448. The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration budget justifications appear on pages 449 through 492.] screwworm Mr. Skeen. Thank you, Mr. Dunn, on a good presentation. Now, let's start with APHIS. As many of you know, APHIS carries out a number of programs that I am particularly familiar with. Being in the livestock business, I've supported and used these programs many times. I appreciate the fact that we do have that kind of quality of representation amongst you folks. You do a great job. I was recently in Panama looking at some agriculture and interior programs. I met with Ambassador Bill Hughes, by the way, who is a former Member of Congress. I think most of you knew Bill. We discussed at great length the Screwworm Program and the plans to move both the personnel and rearing facility from Tuxtla Gutierrez, Mexico to Panama City. I received the Secretary's letter last week informing me that APHIS plans to initiate a privatization study this month. I think that was one of the conditions we agreed to when we visited with the Ambassador relative to this move. The questions I'd like to ask you are, has the scope of the study been worked out with the State Department and others so that everyone's concerns are addressed, number one? And number two, how long do you anticipate the study will take? While we were in Panama, Ambassador Hughes gave me the assurance that the State Department would not stand in the way of transferring personnel to Panama to keep this eradication effort going because it's been pre-eminently successful. When do you expect to have your people on the ground in Panama and doing the study? Mr. Dunn. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your keen interest in our programs. And we especially appreciate you being our Ambassador to the Ambassador. We feel that you did us a great world of good in your visit down there. Mr. Skeen. Well, I thank you. It was nothing like the Lincoln Room, but the Ambassador's place was really very nice. He is such a hospitable guy. It was just a real pleasure visiting with him. We've got a great Ambassador. Mr. Dunn. Again, Mr. Chairman, we thank you. I'm going to ask Mr. Medley, our Administrator for APHIS, to answer the specific questions that you had asked. Mr. Medley. Thank you. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your assistance in this area. We have completed the scope of work. The privatization study is anticipated to be completed around the middle of June. We have requested that five personnel be immediately available to go to Panama. That's in the process of being responded to. We anticipate that those people will be in Panama very soon. We believe the study will resolve the issue that was raised about the construction of the facility. Mr. Skeen. Well, I appreciate that response. I appreciate the efforts that you've made in getting those people down there, and getting the study commenced. I appreciate that very much. We've got a few problems, as you know in Tuxtla. Mr. Medley. Yes. Mr. Skeen. I've been with this program since 1955, and I can't tell you of any other program I've ever known that we've initiated that's been as eminently successful as this one has been because it has saved us millions and millions of dollars in the livestock business. And also millions and millions of hours of time that it used to take to respond to the effort. I hope it was the logical conclusion when we initiated the program that eventually this facility would be opened in Panama so that we could control the screwworm infestation in both the Southern and Northern Hemispheres. So, I commend you for it. animal damage control Let's switch to ADC. I'm concerned about the budget proposal we have here today because you're proposing to save money on a 50/50 cost sharing with the States. As you know many States have cooperator funds that exceed APHIS funding. The first question I have is, does your proposal take into account States that currently provide amounts above what they get from APHIS? Mr. Medley. Mr. Chairman, you're absolutely correct that there are a number of states that do exceed the desirable 50/50 cost share. The current proposal does not take that into account. It's seeking only to reduce Federal contributions in those States where they're not contributing the 50 percent to increase the State cost share to 50 percent. Mr. Skeen. To bring them up to the 50 percent. Mr. Medley. The budget request is reduced by $3.2 million so that each State's cost share would be at least 50 percent of the total program. Mr. Skeen. So, you're talking about $3 million. Mr. Medley. Yes. [Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the agency submitted the following additional information for the record.] States would have to increase their contribution totalling $3.2 million, or as we proposed, to reduce Federal contributions by $3.2 million to achieve each State's funding at least 50 percent of the programs. Mr. Skeen. Congress has provided ADC with $100,000 this year to help with the increased workload and the Wolf Re- Introduction Program. Are these funds going to be adequate to respond to the wolf damage complaints? I understand that's a part of the program. Mr. Medley. Mr. Chairman, those funds were specifically targeted for Montana and the inter-mountain West. Wolf populations are increasing, And the number of complaints about wolf depredation are increasing as well. Mr. Skeen. The people or wolves? Mr. Medley. I would think both. Mr. Skeen. I hope that those correlate. Mr. Medley. We will have to respond to that growing area of concern and additional funds that may be required. Mr. Skeen. Well, the reason I asked the question is because it's imminent that we're going to have an introduction of the gray wolf in New Mexico and in Arizona. Do you support that initiative? I hate to put you up against the wall like that. Mr. Medley. Mr. Chairman, we support having our wildlife biologists with their expertise involved in this effort. Mr. Skeen. To do the studies and other things? Mr. Medley. Yes. Mr. Skeen. Well, let's hope we can confine it this time; the studies. We've got enough predators working on us now. Do you have funding now that's sufficient to initiate this program? Mr. Medley. At this particular point with the activities that we would be called upon, yes. Mr. Skeen. It's been proven through other wolf re- introduction programs that your workload is going to increase. How do you propose to reduce the ADC funds for its ongoing services while at the same time support aprogram that will increase your workload? Mr. Medley. Mr. Chairman, in ADC, we see the activities as expanding on a number of fronts, not just with wolf re- introduction. We're providing assistance to reduce bird studies for increased aviation safety and the increased amount of predator damage in aquaculture. This is an area where our needs are definitely on the increase. In all these areas, we're looking at how we can maximize providing technical assistance to the States and to the industries to meet the expanding needs. Mr. Skeen. And support your extension of the program. Mr. Medley. Yes. Mr. Skeen. Let us know how you're doing with that. Mr. Medley. Yes, sir. We will. Mr. Skeen. Mr. Fazio. regional consolidation Mr. Fazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good to see all of you Gentlemen; particularly, a friend from California, Lon Hatamiya; a friend of long-standing. There are several things I'd like to get into. But since the Chairman began with APHIS, let me ask, if I could of you Mr. Dunn, if you could outline for us the rationale for the consolidation of the APHIS administrative sites to Raleigh and Ft. Collins, Colorado. Indicate if you could what you think might be the impact on the ground on agriculture in those regions of the country where these closures, the other I guess 13 closures, are likely to take place. Mr. Dunn. Mr. Fazio, I'll begin and then I'm going to hand the ball off to Administrator Medley. Mr. Fazio. I'm going to have him in just a few seconds propose some response. Mr. Dunn. Mr. Fazio, this is not something that we took very lightly. We in fact did a long study on how to go about the consolidation. We had submitted a proposal to the Secretary. In fact, the first time we sent it to the Secretary he sent it back and said please re-evaluate. So, that we did. What we propose through the consolidation is in fact a better utilization of the resources, the human and fiscal resources, that we have. And we do feel that by having the consolidation that we will be able to provide a better level of services to our field units because we are not doing away with those field units. They will still be there, but they will have the availability of increased and better resources at that consolidated level. And then I will turn it over to Mr. Medley. Mr. Medley. Thank you. Mr. Fazio, one of the reasons that we're proceeding with regional consolidation is to increase our service, our program delivery. We believe that the hubs will have a strong science support infrastructure that will assist us as we deal with today's emerging plant pests and animal diseases. Also, we have structured our cooperative programs so that we have a very strong State presence, our State plant health director. These positions will remain very strong within each State working with their State counterparts. So, we don't believe that this consolidation will adversely impact program delivery. We feel it will enhance it and allow us to better cross-utilize our resources. Mr. Fazio. Mr. Medley, I assume there is a savings attached to this in the administrative overhead. Can you identify how much we'll be saving as a result of these consolidations? Mr. Medley. From our preliminary figures, we're looking at a savings of approximately 60 administrative positions from the consolidation. But what's really not possible to exactly measure is the savings and enhancement from having our people co-locate with the benefits of synergism by working on issues together; having our animal damage control, wildlife biologists working with Veterinary Services on animal wildlife diseases. We believe that's a tremendous benefit. Mr. Fazio. Are these personnel going to be attrited? Are we having any RIFs? Mr. Medley. No. We will be offering everyone a job. Also, we will be providing out placement services; placing people in other offices in the state, or in the region. We believe that by doing this we'll be able to accomplish consolidation over a two- to four-year period without a RIF occurring. Mr. Fazio. And you really anticipate putting more resources in the field in these co-located facilities with the state programs. Is that going to be something that we can see in measurable budget terms or is that just something we hope to do? Mr. Medley. I think you will be able to measure benefits both in budget terms, and in the program terms of service delivery at the lowest possible level. Mr. Fazio. Well, if for the record, you could provide some information about how that might affect California, I'd appreciate it. [The information follows:] APHIS will be consolidating support services to permit greater sharing of resources, expertise, and perspectives across program lines. Program delivery, however, at the State and local level will remain intact, with no change in management or field delivery personnel. This includes our California Plant Health Director's office in Sacramento. We believe the consolidation of our Regional Offices will enhance service delivery at the local level and provide stakeholders central locations from which to address a broad range of agricultural health and animal care issues. Mr. Fazio. I'm not being parochial enough to simply oppose this because the Sacramento Office is closed. I share your desire frankly, to get the program out into the field where it can do more good. And the one particular interest I have is the effort to co-locate a lot of USDA offices in Davis. I'm interested to know what perhaps remnants of that administrative office may gravitate across the Sacramento River. Mr. Medley. Okay. [The information follows:] APHIS has not been involved in the collocation of USDA offices at Davis, California. However, we are committed to treating our employees fairly and honestly throughout this entire process. Our outplacement efforts for those employees who choose not to transfer to a new regional hub include the identification of other Federal positions, including those that may be available at Davis, where our employees could compete for jobs. The DAVIS Collocation project affects eight USDA agencies that would be in a building to be built on land adjacent to the University of California (DAVIS) campus. The building would be built by a private developer on city of DAVIS land, and the General Services Administration (GSA) would sign a 15-year lease. The primary USDA agencies involved in the consideration are NRCS and FSA. Mr. Fazio. And to see whether or not we can, as the Secretary says, do away with some of the stovepipe structure of the Department. I think he said that several times. Mr. Skeen. Would the Gentleman yield? Mr. Fazio. I'd be happy to yield. Mr. Skeen. In connection with this same discussion that we're undergoing here, at any time when you consolidate, it costs you money up-front. Mr. Medley. Yes, there are up front costs. Mr. Skeen. Do you have enough money to achieve this goal and get it initiated with present funds? Mr. Medley. Mr. Chairman, we would pay for the regional consolidations over two to four years through cost savings. Of course, we're targeting program overhead as an area and looking at what we will need over the two- to four-year period. We're looking to fund consolidation from cost savings and program overhead. Mr. Skeen. And, that's the source of funding? Mr. Medley. That's the initial source. Mr. Skeen. In cost savings. Mr. Medley. Yes. Mr. Skeen. I thank you for your response. Mr. Fazio. organic farming Mr. Fazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The issue of organic farming is of increasing interest in my state. I think we've got something like $85 million worth of organic farming going on, on 50,000 acres. And I know that this is not a local phenomenon. It's a national activity. And there is an increasing market apparently in retail establishments for organic food. Normally, when we ask for implementation of the last farm bill everybody assumes we're talking about the last farm bill. But apparently, in 1990 the responsibility in that farm bill was given to the Department to come up with some national standards so we could get some of the, I don't want to say charlatans out of the industry, but to establish something for consumer purposes and for agricultural production purposes that we can all call the same name. I'm told that we've created a 1992 Board, the National Organics Standard Board. And we're in 1997 and apparently we still don't have any standards. I wondered if you could give me some background as to what's the hold-up here? Why are we finding it so difficult? What are the interplay of interests that prevent the Department from getting its act together on this issue? Mr. Dunn. Mr. Fazio, I think you very accurately pointed out one of the responsibilities of the Marketing and Regulatory Programs. And that's to provide integrity to the marketplace. And that is in fact what we are looking at with the Organic Standards Board. As you had indicated in 1992 we began the establishment of the National Organic Standards Board. They have been working with us. Quite frankly, they didn't always agree on things as you are well-aware. There are a lot of different connotations. There are a lot of, I think, honest differences about how organic standards ought to be; how they should be implemented; who should be doing the certifying; who should be doing the certifiers. All of that notwithstanding, I have to assume the responsibility of not having those out. I'm the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs. My desire was to have those out a year ago. Frankly, we just did not meet that goal. We have at this time completed our in-house completion of those organic standards. We are fetching them from the Agricultural Marketing Service to the rest of the Department. I am hopeful that we will have those standards out by late spring so that they will be in place for the upcoming crop year. I will defer to Administrator Hatamiya to speak of the specifics. Mr. Hatamiya. First of all, Mr. Fazio, thank you for your kind words of welcome. Mr. Fazio. I'll throw you a hot potato. Mr. Hatamiya. That's quite all right. This is an area that's been equally frustrating to us at the Department in terms of final implementation. I have just a couple of notes of information. Funding for the program wasn't available until fiscal year 1994. [Clerk's note.--Funding was provided to the National Organic Standards Board in fiscal years 1992 and 1993 through the advisory committee's appropriation.] Mr. Hatamiya. During the time of this Administration we have been actively working to implement that program. Very frankly, I think we were overly optimistic about what we had to do to get it in place. We're used to implementing standards for single commodities. This is a standard for a growing process, so it's much more complex than we had anticipated initially. As Assistant Secretary Dunn has said, we're now in the final stages of review in the Department and hope to have the proposed rule out on the street this spring. We've worked very closely with the Board and the Department. I want to add that the National Organic Standards Board has been kind of a model--kind of a unique program where the industry has worked directly on making recommendations to the Secretary and to the Department for final implementation of these standards. As you've stated, this is a growing industry. It's one that will continue to grow. Not only are there domestic organic communities awaiting these standards, but the international community is as well. We believe that we will be the first country, once these are implemented, to have a standard that applies from California to Maine. Anywhere you go, you will know what organic means. We're almost there, and we're working very diligently to make that happen. Mr. Fazio. Is the Office of General Counsel as diligently working as the rest of you? Are we getting hung up on legal technicalities that have slowed down an already difficult process? Mr. Hatamiya. There is a process in place, obviously. I never claim in this position to be a lawyer, but unfortunately I am. We have worked very closely with the Office of General Counsel to ensure that we have a system of review in place. I think they have been very helpful in this process. So, it is one that we're trying to work through. It's one that, as I've said before, has been frustrating, but I think we're almost there. Mr. Fazio. So, time spent now will keep you out of court later. Is that the idea? Mr. Hatamiya. That's exactly right. Mr. Fazio. Well, we'll be interested to see how well you do. Mr. Hatamiya. Well, we're hopeful that will be the case as well. pesticide data program Mr. Fazio. I know Mr. Serrano has joined us. Let me ask one other question and then I'll wait on the second round. We've had some controversy within this committee about the Pesticide Data Program and its future role, both within USDA and perhaps EPA. Obviously, I would appreciate it if you could put on the record, how do you review this material? What value do you think this Pesticide Data Program provides to agriculture, to the consumer? There are real questions about how we're going to implement the Food Quality Protection Act; frankly, what role State government and county agricultural commissioners should play. I mean, this is an evolving area and one that's very important to my agricultural constituents. I'm troubled, I might say, by the reduction of even $2.5 million in the budget for this purpose. But I'm even more concerned that we haven't yet figured out why we need this material. And who is responsible for putting this program to work? Mr. Dunn. Mr. Fazio, we received what you might call a mixed signal from Congress as appropriators said we were no longer going to have the Pesticide Data Program. Then again in the Food Quality Protection Act we were mandated to in fact have the program. That did cause us a bit of stumbling. It forced us to work with one of our sister agencies. Mr. Fazio. That's never a bad thing. Mr. Dunn. It is not. And I think we learned a lot by doing that. I will let Lon, again, speak of the specifics. But I must tell you, Mr. Fazio, I have been to Sacramento and met with the folks in the State there who operate this program. And I'm most impressed on the caliber of the personnel, the equipment, and what they're able to do with the Pesticide Data Program in the State of California. Mr. Fazio. I appreciate that. Mr. Hatamiya. Mr. Fazio, in the Pesticide Data Program we think it has been clear from the beginning what the roles have been for the EPA, the Department of Agriculture, and other sister agencies at the Department of Agriculture. We believe that the continuance of this program is even more important now with the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act. It mandates that the Secretary determine what pesticide residues are out there. It gives us that sole responsibility. I will say the Pesticide Data Program is the only program with objective, reliable results concerning pesticide residue on our fruits and vegetables and the other commodities that are tested. I will also point to the fact that it's been a model program. We've worked with ten States across the country. It's been a model program of a partnership in terms of our continued reliability, and our continued partnering with those State departments of agriculture. It's also a model program for our partnership with our sister Federal agencies. We've worked very closely with the Environmental Protection Agency. They see the Pesticide Data Program data as the only source for determining dietary risk assessments, as well as the use and re-registration of minor usepesticides which is critical, obviously, to the area that we're both from. Again, we believe the Department of Agriculture is the appropriate place for the program. We already have the system in place. The economies of scale are already there. But, more importantly, it's because of the fact that we're non-regulatory over these food issues, that we can get voluntary involvement with this program. We have over 900 sites where we take test samples, and those samples are tested in the various state labs. So, we've gotten great cooperation from the people in the retail and the wholesale industries to ensure the integrity of this program. Mr. Fazio. Mr. Dunn mentioned what he saw at the state level in California. Not all states are engaged in this program. Certainly, we're engaged at different levels. What are you doing to try to bring about a higher sense of urgency and perhaps standard of excellence in the various state programs? I don't think this program is going to sustain itself if it's known as a California program, with all due respect to the fact that I finally got on this subcommittee. Mr. Hatamiya. We work very closely with nine other states besides California, in all parts of the country, which represent over 50 percent of the consumable commodities that are tested. We're working the State of New York, the State of Texas, Florida, Maryland, Ohio, and on and on. So, the program covers all regions of the country. We believe that they have been strong proponents of this program. Again, we look at it as a prime example of how the federal and state governments can work together; and not only one federal agency, but a number of federal agencies. My sister agencies here, APHIS and GIPSA, are also involved in that program, as well as NASS and ARS at the Department, as well as EPA. So, we think that it's a program that covers a lot of different bases. Mr. Fazio. Are we getting a lot of support from grower organizations, from pest control advisors, and others in the industry? My sense is they were the ones who were most sensitive to the program. I don't think we've heard much input from them. Mr. Hatamiya. I think people went along and relied upon the data that came along. The situation that existed in the last appropriations cycle probably threw a scare into many of these people. They realized this is the only source of information for pesticide data residue. There has been strong support generated among the groups you mentioned. Mr. Fazio. Let me just wrap-up by asking where are you and EPA on implementing the Food Quality Protection Act in terms of regulations that are emerging? I've had some concerns expressed to me. I mentioned them several times. I won't bore my colleagues any further. But getting into plant breeding at EPA is troublesome to a lot of people. Where is this constant struggle between these agencies with different orientations and different purposes going to be sorted out in regard to this very important law? Mr. Hatamiya. I think by---- Mr. Fazio. You may want to go back to Mr. Dunn at some point. Mr. Hatamiya. I'll turn it back over to Mike after I respond on my behalf. Because of the responsibility I have for the Pesticide Data Program, the Secretary and the Deputy have given me some ability to work closely with EPA to ensure that the Food Quality Protection Act is fulfilled. We have met a number of times since the passage of the legislation to ensure that the cooperation continues. We have just last week, as a matter of fact, had a joint meeting with EPA. We've been invited to their Advisory Committee meetings, and we will continue to give input. The Department is also emphasizing having a central clearinghouse for this. I don't believe it's appropriate in the Agricultural Marketing Service, but it may be more appropriate in other places. I know that's the direction we're going to. But our part in this Food Quality Protection Act is very important; the delivery of the pesticide residue data. So, we're working very closely to ensure that happens. Mr. Dunn. I think as Congress and the Administration struggle to establish a balanced budget, it becomes imperative and it becomes clear to all of us in the Administration administering the programs that we don't have the luxury of having individual programs and going off on our own as we may have in the past. And it's imperative that we work very closely with all agencies to carry out the letter of the law that Congress has asked us to do. And we will see more and more of this. The Government Performance Results Act will in fact grade us on how well we're doing on this. Your earlier question of how are we working with states; we've forged an alliance with the National Association of State Directors of Agriculture. And we are working with them on government and federal programs, in areas that we can assist them. Where they can do a better job, we'll get out of the way and let them do that. If they think we have to do the better job, then we will do it. But we no longer have the luxury of overlapping and duplication. I think Congress has been extremely clear on this. And the President and the Vice President have been as well. Mr. Fazio. I'll back-off right now, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Skeen. Thank you. I'll take advantage, since we're on that particular topic, to ask a couple more questions. How many pesticides have been re-registered by EPA using the data that's been gathered in this program? Mr. Hatamiya. There have been approximately 20 pesticides re-registered using the data from the program. Mr. Skeen. Can you name some of them? Mr. Hatamiya. We'll provide that for you for the record. I don't have that information in front of me right now. [The information follows:] Reregistration Activities by EPA for Major Pesticides in U.S. Agriculture for Multiple Commodity Uses aldicarb captan chlorpropham dicofol fenamiphos mevinphos propargite trifluralin pentachloronitrobenzene or quintozene benomyl chlorothalonil DCPA or dacthal ethion iprodione permethrin thiabendazole Special Review Activities 2,4-D disulfoton diazinon methyl parathion international trade barriers Mr. Skeen. How about international trade barriers? Have we had any barriers dropped because of this data? Mr. Hatamiya. Mr. Chairman, I'm glad you also brought that issue up. The Foreign Agricultural Service uses the data from the Pesticide Data Program to use with our trading partners to lower barriers. It has been a tremendous aid in providing assurance to our trading partners that pesticides are low in the commodities that we're trying to sell into those areas. Mr. Skeen. Thank you for your response. Mr. Serrano. hunt's point market Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have two questions. I'm new to this committee, and I've come to the conclusion that this is a pretty large agency. I'm sometimes wondering if I'm asking the right people the right questions. If I'm not, I'm sure you'll direct me. I represent the Bronx. And we have the Hunt's Point Market, which I know you are all familiar with. What we hear locally is always what the local issues are. You know, whether they need more parking or not; how safe the area is; whether they're moving out eventually or not, along with the Yankees; or whether they move into Yankee Stadium when the Yankees move out, you know, these kinds of discussions. But no one ever discusses the health of the facility. How is it looked at by USDA; what is its future or what should it be. In other words, how's my market doing? Mr. Dunn. Thank you, Mr. Serrano, for that question. I'm going to quickly turn that over to Lon Hatamiya. But I must also add that many folks have the mistaken thought that we don't work in urban areas. In fact, we have approximately I believe 30 employees at the Hunt's Point Marketplace. It is a very valuable and viable role to ensure that we have fresh produce for the entire city. So, Mr. Hatamiya, if you could address the conditions of the facility. Mr. Hatamiya. Mr. Serrano, judging by the volume of fruits and vegetables--all the commodities that go through Hunt's Point--it is the largest terminal market, I believe, in the United States. That's probably one indication of the health of Hunt's Point. As Assistant Secretary Dunn mentioned, we have over 30 employees just working at that facility alone. We have over 20 graders that grade the commodities that go through there on a given day, as well as the fact that we have ten market news reporters who report price and supply and other data that comes through Hunt's Point because of its critical location in terms of the fruit and vegetable trade. So, in that sense, we believe Hunt's Point is very healthy. In terms of the actual facility, we believe that it continues to--I know in your area it's a concern because of where it's located and the growing urbanization around it--but it continues to be a viable location for the trade of fruits and vegetables. Also, under the Agricultural Marketing Service I have the responsibility for reviewing wholesale market and distribution points. At some point, we may be able to go in and take a look at Hunt's Point to do a study as to the long-term viability. And that's something we will take under consideration. Mr. Serrano. Obviously it's one of those areas in New York City where everyone is very much concerned with keeping the facility. And as you said, I believe it doesn't supply just the local metropolitan area, it supplies the whole Northeast. Mr. Hatamiya. That's right. Mr. Serrano. It's really quite a market. I thank you in advance for any further information you could give us as time goes on in terms of what is happening with the market, what new things are happening, what role you're playing on a regular basis. Mr. Hatamiya. Mr. Serrano, we'll try to put together more information. I'll provide that for the record and for your information. [The information follows:] AMS has regular activities at the Hunts Point Market in Fresh Products Grading, Market News Reporting, Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act--PACA--Services, and Pesticide Data collection. The fresh fruit and vegetable products inspection office at the Hunts Point Market is one of the largest in the United States. There are currently 20 Federal employees located at the Hunts Point office. The grading service for fresh fruits, vegetables, and other special products provides for unbiased certification of products in domestic and international marketing systems. Official inspection, grading, and certification services provide factual evidence as to the quality and condition of product moving in commerce throughout the U.S. and the world. AMS' Fruit and Vegetable Market News office in the Hunts Point Market collects price and supply data on a daily basis. That information is compiled and published daily in the New York City Wholesale Fruit and Vegetable Report. This market report is mailed and faxed upon request, plus the information that makes up the report is distributed to the rest of the Market News Program and to direct subscribers via the AMS Market News Telecommunication System, to secondary subscribers and disseminators that further facilitate the broad distribution of this information to thousands of users, and now the information is available on the AMS Internet site. This information is also loaded into the agency database to ensure that it is available for later retrieval, special reports, and analysis. PACA services are provided mainly by the program's Northeast Regional Office located in North Brunswick, NJ. Most businesses located on the Hunts Point Market are required to be licensed under the PACA. Licensees located on the Hunts Point Market include wholesalers, commission merchants, brokers, jobbers, and food service establishments. By establishing a code of trading practices covering the marketing of fruits and vegetables in interstate and foreign commerce, the PACA helps to protect produce businesses located on the Hunts Point Market from unfair and fraudulent business practices. The firms benefit from the PACA's enforcement of fair trading practices by requiring that suppliers, in a timely manner, deliver contracted perishable commodities at the price and quality level specified in the purchase agreement. The misrepresentation and misbranding provisions of the PACA require that shippers ensure that the grade, weight, size, count, and origin of the produce reflected on the shipping container is accurate. The PACA also provides Hunts Point firms with a forum for resolving contract disputes with their suppliers and many of their customers. The Hunts Point Terminal Market also participates in USDA's Pesticide Data Program--PDP. The Market is sampled weekly by the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets for fresh produce, a major commodity component in our program. Of the 180 sampling sites in New York State, which voluntarily participate in PDP, 60 are in the Hunts Point Market. AMS has provided these sites with letters of appreciation and certificates for their participation in our program, which many sites proudly display. PDP's pesticide residue data forms an important cornerstone for dietary risk assessment activities conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency in the reregistration of pesticides. PDP is also a critical component of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, with emphasis on protecting the health of infants and children. agricultural quarantine inspection Mr. Serrano. I have one last question, Mr. Chairman. This is one that has always kind of intrigued me. I know that USDA oversees the 50 states and I also know that it oversees the territories. Yet I notice that for instance, if you go to Florida and you buy oranges and you put the oranges in the trunk of your car, you can travel the whole nation with the oranges in the trunk of your car. And you are obviously not stopped in any state to see if you have Florida oranges. In California they probably just won't stop you. They'll do more than that. They're all ex-New Yorkers anyway. So are the people in Florida, actually. But when you travel, say, from Puerto Rico, specifically from Puerto Rico to the U.S., if you bring any fruits or vegetables, you're stopped at the airport and treated like you're coming in from a foreign country. You have famous stories in the Puerto Rican community and in our family of who was able to sneak in how many mangos in 1969 or 1985 or whatever. Why is that? Why are those fruits and vegetables treated as foreign delicacies that should not be allowed in the country? Mr. Dunn. Mr. Serrano, you raised a question that I'm glad to answer. It's because of what pests there may be located in other parts of the nation, other trust territories that we might have, and certainly in other countries. We have a program called Don't Pack a Pest in which when people come in, we tell them---- Mr. Serrano. We do. We could feed them in an election usually. Mr. Dunn. What you can bring in and what you cannot bring in. And as you go through the airport, you will see our little Beagle Brigades in their green outfits. They are sniffing out to find out. Very often folks unknowingly bring in something that is of grave consequences to our agricultural sector. Right now in New York we're going through a program where we're cutting down a number of the maple trees and elm trees in the city. And people are very concerned about that. But the reason why we have to do that is because someone did bring in a pest; the Asian Longhorn Beetle. And that pest has the potential to wipe out the entire maple tree population in the Northeast. Obviously what would happen to the maple syrup industry, what would happen to the tourism industry if we had that type of devastation would be tragic. So, we have to be constantly vigilant to ensure that those pests do not come in. I'm going to ask Mr. Medley then to address specifically what we find in Puerto Rico. Mr. Serrano. But before you go on, you've given me a question much more provocative in nature than what I expected because of the phrasing of your answer, ``bringing into the country''. Well, that's just one part of the country to the other, whether it's a state or not. Southern Florida is as tropical as you can get, yet you can bring tropical fruits from Southern Florida to New York. We grow mangos in this country. We grow sugar. We grow pineapples. We grow avocados and guava. Now, do the ones that we grow in one part of the nation have fewer pests than the ones we grow in another part? What I'm getting at is I know what you guys are saying. And I know where it came from. But I think in 1997 that policy may not hold any more. There may not be a reason for it any longer, unless Puerto Rico stands out with the Virgin Islands and Guam somewhere physically and in such a condition that it does present a danger to the rest of the nation that it doesn't present to itself. Mr. Dunn. The answer, sir, is yes. There is a difference because in those parts of Florida, those pests are not present. What we're trying to do is ensure that we don't have a presence of those pests come in. I will turn it over to Mr. Medley to answer specifics. Mr. Medley. To give an illustration, there is one area in Florida, Dade County, where you would not be able to bring citrus out and take it into New York or the Northeast. In Dade County, Florida, we have a citrus canker quarantine with collection points to prevent the movement of citrus. This illustrates our efforts in identifying particular economically or quarantine significant pests, wherever they might be located, and putting into place appropriate safeguards to prevent further dissemination or movement. When you have an island environment, for instance, like the State of Hawaii which has fruit flies, we must place certain restrictions on certain commodities coming from that area. There are a number of regulations that prohibit or restrict certain agricultural products in moving from one state or region to another. It's all part of our overall safeguard system to try to prevent the widespread dissemination of quarantine significant pest. For instance, right now in Puerto Rico, there is a concern about sorghum. Mr. Serrano. What? Mr. Medley. Sorghum. There is a particular fungus, an ergot, that has been documented on the sorghum seeds in Puerto Rico. At this point we're working with industry and with ARS to make sure that seed coming from Puerto Rico does not introduce the fungus into Texas, Kansas, and other major sorghum producing areas. When quarantine significant pests are identified, we restrict certain movements. Mr. Dunn. Mr. Serrano, let me also make it perfectly clear that we don't just work with those protectorates or those other countries in saying you're quarantined. We also assist them in setting up protocols in which they can help eradicate the problems that they have so that we do have an open and free trade. That is an extremely important part I think of our program. Mr. Serrano. I'm sorry I got on the subject. With all due respect, sir, when you say that we're going to help ``them'' so that we can have free trade with ``them'', they're not ``them''. They're a part of the United States. You would not use the same wording if you were talking about California or New York. You don't help New York solve a problem so they can trade with California because New York and California are the same. I'm suggesting that this policy is antiquated. I'm suggesting that this policy is general, global in nature. It says anything that comes out of Puerto Rico has to be treated like it's coming from Peru. Well, we who come from Puerto Rico originally paid a price for being different than Peru or Columbia. And that's the association we have with this country. And just consider your wording. I'm not trying to hang you on it, but if you analyze it later on, you will realize that you said, you know, we will help ``them'' solve their problems. We can trade with ``them''. There is no trade. It is just movement. And it's not help. You are the Agriculture Department in Puerto Rico. There is no other national Agriculture Department. You are it. What you say goes. So, why for years have we been saying nothing comes in from Puerto Rico, but everything can move among the 50 states? It just seems to me that there might be policies that need to be looked at because they might still be stuck in 1917, when it was not called Puerto Rico, but when we changed its name for a while to Porta Rico. Mr. Fazio. Would you yield for a minute. Mr. Serrano. Sure. pest detection Mr. Fazio. I just was interested in following up on a couple of points. First, anything you could tell us or put on the record eventually about the relationship with Hawaii in this regard might be of interest because I think we're talking about the Continental U.S. There may be some similarities in our relationship with Hawaii even though they are a state. But I'm particularly interested also in really getting some information, and maybe for the record as well, about what we're doing in Puerto Rico to deal with the problem, other than to keep it from coming here. I think that may be where I would be most supportive of Mr. Serrano's concerns; not wanting to import a problem, but not wanting to simply treat Puerto Rico as a lesser part of our country. Are we making the same kind of emphasis on ridding pests in Puerto Rico that we might be, say, in the Los Angeles Basin? Mr. Dunn. I think that's an excellent point. For instance, with Karnal bunt right now, we do not let wheat come out of the State of Arizona, and New Mexico, and a part of Southern California. What we can do is provide you with a list of what we are doing throughout the nation in assisting producers throughout to ensure that we are ridding the nation of the pests that we find in certain areas in certain regions. We do have regionalization that is enforced throughout the nation, not merely because an area is an island or geographically removed. It is a very, very serious job that we have to do to protect the integrity of the rest of the nation from diseases. I'll turn it back to Terry again. Mr. Medley. You make an excellent point in that for any of the restrictions that we're imposing, there should in fact be a very sound scientific basis, as well as a course of action that we're developing to respond to the pest or disease. Right now we're looking at how we can better utilize pest risk analysis in setting up free zones and in identifying systems under which you can also export, or move interstate different commodities. We're committed to this approach. You will see in this year's budget request, that there is an increase in pest detection which is a general area which deals with specific quarantine significant pests. Karnal bunt activities have been identified for some of the increase because of the current problem. But we are, Congressman, committed to assuring that, whether it's the Continental U.S., Puerto Rico, Hawaii, or one of our territorial possessions, the rules being developed are uniform and equally applied. We have to do this domestically because we're expecting the same thing of our international trading partners. We're committed to a level playing field. Mr. Serrano. I appreciate that. I certainly don't envy the work that you gentlemen and your agency have to undertake on a daily basis. My comments were more directed at my desire that we review this overall policy, and to understand that, you know, as strange as this may seem, there is no agency that reminds Puerto Ricans that we're not a state or an independent nation more than USDA because of the way it treats people the minute they leave the island. You can leave from here to go to Puerto Rico and bring all the fruits and vegetables you want. But the minute you're coming back, you're treated at the airport like you're leaving a foreign country to enter into the United States. And I understand what you're telling me. There might be problems. Well, you are the Agency down there. You can take care of those problems and not keep sending that message that you send every time we try to board a plane. Thank you. Mr. Skeen. Mr. Latham. Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to have to leave. Mr. Skeen. Mr. Kingston. user fees Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What are the five fees that you're proposing? Mr. Medley. Three of those; for animal welfare, veterinary biologics, the biotechnology were proposed in the last two budget requests. The swine and the pink bollworm user fees are being proposed this year for the first time. Mr. Kingston. And the animal control---- Mr. Medley. No, sir. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is where we're asking for the user fees. And that would be for those facilities that receive licenses and services. In terms of our animal welfare program, they would have to pay user fees. [Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the agency submitted the following additional information:] The proposal would be to collect fees from entities and individuals licensed under the AWA as well as from facilities required to register. Under this proposal, these licenses and registrants would have to pay user fees. Mr. Kingston. And how does it work------ Mr. Medley. It would work the same way. It would be assessing a fee to pay for the service that is rendered by the Agency for the benefit of the recipient; be it, a license for a particular product in biologics or a certification in biotechnology. It would be a service fee. We're anticipating that collectively it's almost $10 million. Mr. Kingston. On health and welfare do you get involved---- Mr. Medley. No, sir. We do not. internet page Mr. Kingston. On your Internet page, does that save any money. Is there a possibility that kind of technology can put us into saving money? You have producers who can get to the information so much easier. Mr. Dunn. We think it's probably saved us a lot of money just in mailing already because people are able to download, and sometimes large volumes of information. The real savings in that is that we get information out to producers, processors and end users so that everyone is available; the same type of information almost on a real time basis. And it levels the playing field. Mr. Kingston. On that scale, how many people have them; 75 percent, 30 percent? How many are the producers that you work with? Do you know yet? Mr. Dunn. I'm not sure how many producers have computers. I've heard that it's as high as 75 percent. But I'm not privy to any of that type of information. Perhaps our ERS people can give us a better insight into that. Mr. Kingston. Once they get on-line can you discontinue the mailing? Ms. Medley. On many of the things that they may be pulling off line or things that are proposed rules that would be in the Federal Register. What they would have done in the past is call us and ask us to send them a copy, or fax them a copy. They no longer need to do that. animal welfare Mr. Kingston. We had the Inspector General about two weeks ago testify before the subcommittee. He said that he had talked to APHIS about coming up with new regulations for domestic owners of animals; individuals that would comply with the same regulations that pet stores or zoos do. Does that ring a bell to you? Mr. Medley. We recently issued a policy on pocket pets. We also held three public hearings where we looked at a number of animal welfare issues. We have had inquiries in terms of regulations for trying to control dogs that are used for hunting, breeding, and security. So, there are a number of issues, Congressman, that have been raised over the last year. It wouldn't surprise me if that was also included. I would like to add on your question about the use of our web page on the Internet. There are three major benefits that we see. One, in addition to just informing and educating, we are making information readily available for people to use. But we're also using the Internet as a way to move to electronic submission for certain activities that we oversee. Again, this would have the advantage of not only reducing the time, but it would be more responsive to the customer. And we see this as a way that we can help to provide additional information, expedite our service, and lower costs all together. regulations Mr. Kingston. Well, thank you. Let me just express my concern about some of the regulations that government agencies come out with. I think often it over steps the boundary of a regulatory agency. It should be more the prerogative of a legislative body. I think you should recommend things. I am very perturbed at the FDA's tobacco regulations. I think it is an overreach of a bureaucracy. And whether I would have voted for such a proposal or not, it's a different issue. To have an agency go out on such a power play I think it's really a very bold step in terms of just ramming up to the side of the Constitutional authority of an agency. So, I hope that you're careful about this one. Mr. Medley. Congressman, we have issued an internal agency directive; it was very clear that the use of our web page or Internet is not in any way a substitute for fully complying with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act to go through substantive rulemaking. Mr. Kingston. Also, you had mentioned in one of your testimonies about using sound science on the biotech. Mr. Medley. Yes. Mr. Kingston. I'm very proud to see that statement in there. I hope you do that on all your regulations. Mr. Medley. Thank you. Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Skeen. Thank you, Mr. Kingston. Let's go back to the port of entry situation with fruits and vegetables. On a recent trip through Hawaii, we visited the research station there for the fruit fly relative to the papaya production. What an enormous affect this had on eradicating the problem with the fruit flies, as well as developing a strain of papaya's that are much more resistant to them. It was a totally absorbing experience. But that's exactly what Mr. Serrano has been talking about. That's what's been going on in Puerto Rico and in places like Hawaii because of the island atmosphere. I think it illustrates exactly what your Department does in that connection. The research has been tremendously valuable. I would like to move on to GIPSA at this point. Mr. Baker, Jim, excuse me, this is a formal hearing. Jim, it's good to see you again and I enjoyed the visit we had and appreciated reading the articles you left with me. None of them were valued over $5. We've been hearing for quite sometime now about the concentration of the meat packing industry. Would you give us a rundown on what that situation is and what affect it's having on the meat production and processing? meat packing industry Mr. Baker. In the last few years, Mr. Chairman, the meat packing industry has become more concentrated; quite a bit more, especially in the fat cattle production and in beef cattle production. But we also see it in hogs, pork production, and poultry where the companies that are surviving are the ones that merge, become larger and more complex. It is perceived, and maybe rightly so, that it puts the producers at an unfair disadvantage to deal when so few peoplehave control of such a large share. So, we're tasked with the responsibility to make sure that there is an open marketplace out there and that no manipulation or deceptive practices are being used that would cause the producer to get an unfair price. We take that responsibility very seriously. We're asking for additional money in our budget to channel more resources to tackle this problem, both in poultry and in livestock. Mr. Skeen. We appreciate your effort because it's had a tremendous affect on beef prices for one. Along that line too, I'd like to ask you if there is any prohibition or control over the packers, major packers, in this particular group of three or four major packers. We've got them feeding their own livestock so they'd have a fall-back. If the prices are high, they can fall-back on the stuff they've got in their yards and so forth. That charge has been made time and time again. I don't know what the validity of it is, but could you tell us? Mr. Baker. The law does not prohibit a packer from feeding cattle. Our statistics show that the packers own about four percent of the production in this country; four percent are packer-fed, packer-owned. Mr. Skeen. That's not believed to be a significant role, but 4 percent of a fatty market is a big chunk. Mr. Baker. Well, that's what our statistics show at this time. But it's perceived that that's a highly leverageable position to be in, in a depressed market, or that such arrangements can control the market. Our evidence doesn't support that at this time. But there is no law against a packer feeding their cattle. Mr. Skeen. But it's a common practice even amongst the largest packing interests. Mr. Baker. It truly is in the poultry industry. In the pork industry it truly is. It's 4 percent in the beef industry. My question to people in this area is where do they buy that production at? Who do they buy it from? Mr. Skeen. It had to come from a primary producer somewhere. Mr. Baker. That's right. They buy in the same market that Jim Baker buys in. And you talk to market operators where these people buy livestock, they're proud to have them there. It creates a good competitive market procuring those cattle. Mr. Skeen. But the fact is market prices also have an affect on the primary producer as well. If you can control the fat market over there, you can have a hell of an affect on the feeder market along with a primary producer. Mr. Baker. That's true. The end value of the product on the fat cattle end of it is a pretty well ripple effect back to the price of other animals. Mr. Skeen. Well, there's been a lot of criticism about that situation. Of course there are fewer and fewer primary producers these days because of the drop in the market. Mr. Baker. This is true. It reminds us that it is a cyclical business. There will be ups and downs in it. I dare say that there is probably manipulation in areas that we haven't discovered, but we have a presence there. I believe we've had a valid presence there. Mr. Skeen. Well, I appreciate your response. Mr. Fazio. bovine spongiform encephalopathy (bse) Mr. Fazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Many of us in the Washington area read the mad cow feature in the Washington Post over the weekend. And I just wanted to ask Mr. Dunn, or anyone else at the table, to discuss with us some of the debate within the Department on whether or not we're doing an adequate job in this area or whether or not, as some would advise, we try to go further in standards and regulation that might prevent the kind of infection we have within the wool industry, the scrapie problem, crossing over into impacting on the cattle industry in a way that would not only obviously damage them for domestic consumption, but would limit their export potential. Mr. Dunn. We've long had a voluntary scrapie program here at the Department of Agriculture and have helped folks to reduce the occurrence of scrapie in their herds. In the late 1980s when we became aware of the problem of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in the UK and its potential link to the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the USDA quarantined cattle coming in from the UK. We had a herd of around 490. We were able to follow that herd. We kept track of where they were. Last year we assisted the State Departments of Agriculture and others in acquiring those animals and euthanizing them and ensuring that they would not get into the food chain of either humans or animals. But the specifics of the ruminant-to-ruminant feed and where we are on that, I'm going to ask Mr. Medley to address. Just about a year ago we had a meeting, USDA-sponsored, and had about 150 scientists and regulators from the nation to take a look at this potential because we saw this as a real and a perceived crisis here in the United States. And we did not want to have the hysteria that we saw in the UK take place. Mr. Fazio. We all know that perception can be reality in food production as well as politics. Mr. Dunn. Yes. Mr. Fazio. Okay. Mr. Medley. Congressman, in this area of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and the activities that we've conducted at APHIS with our sister agencies, Food Safety Inspection Service, the Food and Drug Administration, as well as the Centers For Disease Control, we can say that it has not been detected in the U.S. We feel that with these measures that we will prevent BSE from occurring. We are, however, very concerned about making sure that we continue to re-evaluate, to re-assess, and to assure that our policies are the best policies possible for preventing BSE from occurring. With regard to scrapie, you might be aware that recently because of the situations raised, we did suspend the importation on sheep and goat and certain embryos. We have sent out a survey to a number of countries to look at what systems they have in place for attesting to the disease status of their livestock population. We will continue to monitor this situation. We will continue to participate in international discussions and forums and make those adjustments that are necessary. We do support and we have provided comments on the FDA ruminant-to-ruminant ban. We feel that collectively all of the agencies are takingthose steps that are necessary to protect our U.S. livestock population. The article discussed the measures that we are taking and it talked about whether or not there were more. It did evaluate BSE measures as being adequate. Mr. Fazio. At the moment the Department does not feel that the FDA's ruminant-to-ruminant ban recommendation is required? It essentially agrees with people in the industry, people representing the feed industries and the rendering industries that we may well have a disposal problem; carcass, solid waste disposal problem and other impacts, including severe financial effects? It would make it prohibitive to take a ban approach here? Mr. Medley. No. The Department, both APHIS and the Food Safety Inspection Service, did provide our comments to FDA in support of the ruminant-to-ruminant ban that they were proposing. We do acknowledge the issues that you've raised about disposal and waste. FDA had three specific options. One they proposed. A second option was a tissue specific ban and a third option which was a mammalian-to-mammalian ban. We support their recommended option of the ruminant-to-ruminant ban. Mr. Fazio. So, the Department and all its agencies are together on this. Mr. Medley. Yes. Mr. Fazio. Implementation? Mr. Medley. There are a lot of questions that will be raised if FDA adopts the recommendation as a final rule, e.g. what would be the implementation requirements? Mr. Fazio. That's suddenly come back to you? Mr. Medley. No. Mr. Fazio. Who will actually implement the ban? Mr. Medley. Because we're talking about animal feed, that will involve FDA, as well as FSIS as it relates to humans, but it involves States because States collect a lot of these records and perform many related activities. Sanitary/phytosanitary standards Mr. Fazio. One more question, Mr. Chairman. And this really goes to, I think, APHIS again. And that is the whole question of phytosanitary restrictions that are now a major issue in international trade. Lon mentioned earlier some allusion to this, but how much of your agency's time and resources are being spent to assist the elimination of what I think are often unfair trade standards that are being imposed for pseudo-scientific reasons? And on the other hand, are you engaged much in a countervailing question and that is the degree to which others want to import to this country? Who may or may not have reached standards that are acceptable to our consumers? Mr. Medley. More of our resources are spent addressing legitimate sanitary, phytosanitary restrictions than on our own import requirements. We find this is one of the new paradigms today as it relates to trade; we used to have a ``don't look, don't find, don't have'' response that occurred. Because of our unique systems and our good university structures, we are constantly documenting the health status of our plant and animal resources. Today, we have more of a requirement to have active surveillance and certification programs to prove that plant and animal resources are free of pests and diseases. We feel that in this new environment, because of our infrastructures, we will fare exceptionally well. It does require a large amount of resources to respond to the constant threat of pests or diseases and the economic impact on trade. The only ``legitimate'' issues that should be raised are the sanitary, phytosanitary ones. Mr. Fazio. How much shift in resources has occurred in your budget for the purposes of meeting this kind of challenge in recent years. I know these burdens keep piling up. But what are you doing differently to absorb this workload? Are you getting increases? Are you re-orienting your current staffing? Mr. Medley. Yes. Mr. Fazio. What's being done that really prepares you to handle the burden? Mr. Medley. Congressman, fortunately a large part of our resources are provided under our Agricultural Quarantine Inspection programs which is under user fees. A number of our activities relate to doing pest risk analysis, both on the animal and plant side. We received a funding increase in our international services area this year. And we've pointed out the increased workload in this area. In fact in this current budget, there is an increase in that line item and recognition of the increased resources that we will need. Mr. Fazio. And you can obtain a fee under the manner in which you're conducting the work at the moment? Or are you, in dealing with generic problems, calling on general fund resources that you must mix into your budget? Mr. Medley. Some general fund resources are allocated for the pest risk analysis that we perform. We have sought and received increases in some line items to cover those. Also, we must better utilize our resources in terms of cross-utilization. And that is some of what we're doing in our regional consolidations. Having these science hubs gives usthe infrastructure that would better support these types of new responsibilities. Mr. Fazio. If you could supply some information on those points for the record, I'd appreciate it. Mr. Medley. Yes. [The information follows:] The new regional hubs are located in areas that are near important science and technical centers for APHIS and provide a wealth of research resources for the Agency to draw upon. Both locations offer opportunities for APHIS to build upon its role as a science-based organization that leads the way in anticipating and responding to animal and plant health related issues, risk analysis, environmental stewardship and animal well-being. Mr. Fazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Skeen. Mr. Serrano. Mr. Serrano. I have no questions. Mr. Skeen. Well, I think that brings us to the culmination of this wonderful exercise. We appreciate very much the information you've been forthcoming with, the presentation you've made, and the work you do. Mr. Dunn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Skeen. That will also hold open the possibility of asking you for written responses to some questions that we may ask. Mr. Dunn. We pledge to promptly respond, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Skeen. Thank you very much. We're adjourned. [The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service written questions and responses appear on pages 27 through 96. The Agricultural Marketing Service written questions and responses appear on pages 97 through 144. The Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration written questions and responses appear on pages 144 through 173. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service animal welfare enforcement Mr. Skeen. Please provide a table showing, by state, the number of staff years assigned to the animal welfare program, as well as the number of animal care facilities, in each state for fiscal year 1996. [The information follows:] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ No. of State Staff years animal care facilities ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alaska........................................ ........... 20 Alabama....................................... ........... 61 Arkansas...................................... 1 70 Arizona....................................... 1 195 California.................................... 13 464 Colorado...................................... 1 79 Connecticut................................... 1 66 Delaware...................................... ........... 13 District of Columbia.......................... ........... 6 Florida....................................... 6 382 Georgia....................................... 2 117 Hawaii........................................ 1 46 Iowa.......................................... 3 412 Idaho......................................... 1 19 Illinois...................................... 4 265 Indiana....................................... 1 165 Kansas........................................ 4 488 Kentucky...................................... 1 47 Louisiana..................................... 1 51 Massachusetts................................. ........... 145 Maryland...................................... 34 70 Maine......................................... ........... 27 Michigan...................................... 1 165 Minnesota..................................... 1 186 Missouri...................................... 8 1,153 Mississippi................................... ........... 26 Montana....................................... ........... 34 North Carolina................................ 1 96 North Dakota.................................. 1 45 Nebraska...................................... 2 192 New Hampshire................................. 1 24 New Jersey.................................... 1 119 New Mexico.................................... 1 36 Nevada........................................ 1 67 New York...................................... 2 295 Ohio.......................................... 3 190 Oklahoma...................................... 4 421 Oregon........................................ 2 106 Pennsylvania.................................. 3 332 Puerto Rico................................... ........... 28 Rhode Island.................................. ........... 18 South Carolina................................ ........... 36 South Dakota.................................. 1 114 Tennessee..................................... 1 69 Texas......................................... 14 483 Utah.......................................... 1 27 Virginia...................................... 1 80 Vermont....................................... 1 11 Washington.................................... 1 86 Wisconsin..................................... 2 151 West Virginia................................. ........... 33 Wyoming....................................... ........... 4 Guam.......................................... ........... 2 ------------------------- Total................................... 129 7,837 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ stolen dogs Mr. Skeen. As a result of an Office of the Inspector General review, APHIS was developing legislation to strengthen and improve the agency's authority regarding stolen dogs. What is the status of this legislation? Response. Legislation is currently at the Department which would, if passed, make it illegal to sell random source animals. The Class B, random source dealers, a suspected area of outlet of the stolen pet trade, would be significantly impacted and eliminated. animal care Mr. Skeen. A training manual to increase the quality, uniformity, and standardization of inspections and reports of the Animal Care program is being developed at the agency. When can we expect this manual to be distributed and used by all animal care personnel? Response. We have been developing the manual for over 3 years. The first section of the manual, relating to Animal Care Policies, will be released in the spring of 1997. The remainder of the manual will be finalized in late 1997 or early 1998. Mr. Skeen. Provide a table similar to the one that appears on pages 62 and 63 of last year's hearing record showing inspection activities of the animal welfare program for fiscal year 1996. [The information follows:] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Number of number of Total number sites inspections of inspections ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Insepctions for compliance: Dealers........................................................ 4,265 1.36 5,819 Research facilities............................................ 2,506 1.11 2,790 Exhibitors..................................................... 2,453 1.16 2,851 In-transit handlers............................................ 417 0.66 275 In-transit carriers............................................ 725 1.24 901 -------------------------------------------- Sub-total.................................................... 10,366 1.22 12,636 Other types of inspections: Prelicensing and preregistration audits........................ N/A N/A 1,932 Auction market observations.................................... N/A N/A 59 Inspections of dealers and exhibitors.......................... N/A N/A 1,363 -------------------------------------------- Sub-total.................................................... .............. ........... 3,354 Total Enforcement Activities................................. .............. ........... 15,990 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Skeen. Your agency has been drafting regulations for a number of years now to amend the animal welfare regulations to ensure that farm animals used for regulated research, exhibition, and sale are treated humanely in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act. Where in the regulatory process are you? Response. In response to a request from the Office of Management and Budget--OMB--we have conducted a statistically valid random survey of existing facilities to determine the economic impact of standards on farm animals used in regulated research, exhibitions, and sales. We are currently evaluating the results, and will forward them to OMB soon. With concurrence from OMB, we hope to publish a proposed rule for farm animals used for these purposes during the summer of 1997. Mr. Skeen. What is the status of proposing regulatory changes regarding the presence of scars on horses? Response. APHIS has incorporated a proposed scar rule regulatory change into our strategic enforcement plan, which is currently in Department clearance. This regulatory proposal would place greater emphasis on disqualifying horses with evidence of scarring. We plan to conduct a joint review of the scar rule proposal with horse industry representatives as well as other concerned parties during the spring of 1997. regulatory enforcement and animal care Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 86 of last year's hearing record showing the funding levels, both dollars and staff, allocated for Regulatory Enforcement and Animal Care to include fiscal year 1997. [The information follows:] reac funding history REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Funding Staff Fiscal year (appropriated) years ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1989........................................... $4,516,355 123 1990........................................... 4,844,844 131 1991........................................... 5,789,519 121 1992........................................... 5,904,459 141 1993........................................... 5,623,823 125 1994........................................... 5,958,354 129 1995........................................... 5,858,926 119 1996........................................... 5,892,726 107 1997........................................... 5,855,000 107 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ANIMAL CARE ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Funding Staff Fiscal year (appropriated) years ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1989........................................... $5,928,003 154 1990........................................... 7,688,947 174 1991........................................... 9,224,947 184 1992........................................... 9,447,313 184 1993........................................... 9,796,411 179 1994........................................... 9,755,805 183 1995........................................... 9,585,218 178 1996........................................... 9,766,427 157 1997........................................... 9,545,000 155 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Skeen. Also update the table that appears on the same page showing the number of: dealer facilities; complaints registered against these facilities; inspections and re-inspections that took place; cases submitted by Animal Care to Regulatory Enforcement for review and action; and each case's resolution to include fiscal year 1996. [The information follows:] REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT AND ANIMAL CARE ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year-- Category -------------------------------------- 1994 1995 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total number of facilities....... 7,869 7,966 7,837 Complaints registered............ 642 566 508 Inspections/re-inspections....... 14,778 14,722 12,636 Cases submitted to IES........... 719 425 370 Resolution: Official warnings.... 389 263 182 Stipulations..................... 78 85 45 Formal admin. decisions.......... 44 35 84 Civil penalties.................. $345,900 $451,725 $1,050,590 Suspensions/revocations.......... 23 19 29 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Skeen. How many unannounced inspections of registered in- transit carriers and in-transit intermediate handlers were conducted in fiscal year 1996? Response. We conducted 901 unannounced inspections of registered in-transit carriers and 275 unannounced inspections of in-transit intermediate handlers. Mr. Skeen. What were the findings and recommendations of the February 1996 public hearings that were held in Missouri and Kansas to solicit input from the public regarding animal welfare issues? Response. The three public meetings held in St. Louis, Missouri, Kansas City, Missouri, and Washington, DC generated many useful findings and recommendations. Several of the major recommendations included: (1) increasing education of both USDA inspectors and the affected industries; (2) strengthening enforcement of existing regulations; (3) promoting greater uniformity in interpretation of regulations by USDA inspectors' (4) not regulating breeding frequency; (5) prohibiting random source ``Class B'' dealers from selling to research entities; and (6) prohibiting Class B dealers from purchasing animals from unlicensed individuals or entities. As a result of these recommendations, we are increasing education of USDA inspectors and affected industry, strengthening enforcement of existing regulations, and promoting greater uniformity in interpreting regulations by USDA inspectors. We have decided not to regulate breeding frequency at this time. We are reviewing whether or not to prohibit random source ``Class B'' dealers from selling to research entities and to prohibit ``Class B'' dealers from purchasing animals from unlicensed individuals or entities. If we decide to implement these prohibitions, a legislative change will be required. animal care Mr. Skeen. Why was there a 13 percent decrease in the number of animal care investigations in fiscal year 1996? Response. Several factors contributed to the 12.5 percent reduction in the number of inspections conducted at licensees and/or registrants during FY 1996. First, the number of full-time equivalent positions fell from 69 in FY 1995 to 64.5 in FY 1996, a reduction of 8 percent. This was partially attributable to individuals leaving and in some cases not being replaced, i.e., a conscious decision to streamline the work force was made following the guidelines of the Agency, Department, and Administration's efforts at right-sizing our organization; and several individuals on extended sick leave and/or leave without pay during much of the year. Another factor was an increase in the number of prelicensing inspections, which rose from 1,853 to 1,932, a gain of nearly 5 percent. In addition to conducting more of these inspections,significant efforts are being devoted to educating new licensees and registrants in the mission and objectives of the Animal Care program, which we hope will translate into improved compliance. Significant resources were devoted to our major Animal Care Strategic Direction initiative, out of which eight employee-based teams were formed. The teams are currently examining the program's direction, and will be making recommendations for improvement. These efforts, taken together, impacted our ability to conduct inspections at licensees and registrants in the short run, but should pay long-term dividends in improving the quality of enforcement and the degree of cooperation by our regulated entities. Mr. Skeen. How many violations discovered during a compliance animal care inspection remained uncorrected at the time of the reinspection visit during fiscal years 1995 and 1996? Response. APHIS does not maintain data on the collective number of violations which remained uncorrected at the time of reinspection visits. All uncorrected violations require follow-up by the inspector and respective Animal Care regional office to ensure correction of all deficiencies. Matters not corrected are forwarded for initiation of legal action. As a result of uncorrected items found during our reinspection process, 370 request for investigation were made during FY 1996. Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the legislative proposal drafted in fiscal year 1996 to strengthen the authority of the Animal Welfare Act? Response. The Department is continuing to consider changes to strengthen our enforcement authority under the Animal Welfare Act. The proposed changes to the Act have been forwarded and are currently undergoing review at the Department. Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the pilot projects initiated in Kentucky, North Carolina, and South Carolina to conduct animal welfare inspections at airports? Response. During the first phase of the project which started in October 1996. APHIS Veterinary Services--VS--personnel were trained in conducting animal welfare inspections at airports. The second phase is in progress, and VS personnel have conducted 20 inspections of airport facilities. After completion of the second phase in late 1997 or early 1998, we will evaluate the project to determine its effectiveness. So far, results have been very favorable. Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the formulation of an animal care outreach program and the development of initial plans for industry training? Response. We established a full-time position dedicated to the Animal Care outreach program. A key program objective is to submit a report of Animal Care activities to industry stakeholders. We will publish the first quarterly report on March 14, 1997, and will be mailed to stakeholders and other interested parties. The report discusses Animal Care's mission, objectives, and accomplishments. APHIS has also established two employee-based teams to develop initial plans for industry training. One group is focusing on training needs of our own Animal Care inspectors, and the other on specific industry group needs. Training will begin early in Fiscal Year 1998. In addition, we recently launched a public affairs campaign to better educate the general public about the Animal Care mission. In the coming weeks, we will develop many new communications products including fact sheets, brochures, and exhibits to educate government officials, the general public, animal protection organizations, and regulated industries about the purpose and activities of our Animal Care organization. Horse Protection Act Enforcement Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the plan to enhance the regulatory responsibilities of the horse industry and redirect APHIS' regulatory industry in their enforcement of the Act? Response. We developed a strategic enforcement plan for Horse Protection. This plan, now under review, incorporates extensive information gained from all sectors of the horse industry and others during three public forums, Federal Register comments, and write-in campaigns during FY 1996. We anticipate finalizing the strategic plan during the spring of FY 1997. We will make the plan available to the horse industry to seek final consensus. The plan contemplates delegating greater horse inspection responsibilities to USDA-certified horse industry organizations. brucellosis Mr. Skeen. At this time last year, we were down to 50 herds under quarantine in the United States for brucellosis, of which 34 herds were located in the State of Texas. Where do stand today? Response. As of February 28, 1997, there are 26 herds under quarantine in the United States for brucellosis. There are 22 in Texas, and one each in Florida, Kansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. Mr. Skeen. Provide a five-year table, including estimates for fiscal year 1998, that shows the amount spent on brucellosis infected bison at Yellowstone National Park. Also, provide a brief explanation of how these funds were used. [The information follows:] YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK BRUCELLOSIS PROGRAM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Amount Year spent How it was spent ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1994........................ $30,000 Personnel, travel, laboratory support. 1995........................ 155,000 Personnel, travel, research in YNP, supplies, laboratory support. 1996........................ 300,000 Personnel, travel, research in YNP, supplies, laboratory support. 1997........................ 400,000 Personnel travel, research in YNP, supplies, laboratory support. 1998 (est).................. 700,000 Personnel, travel, two research projects using YNP bison, supplies, laboratory support. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Skeen. In 1989, APHIS adopted the Rapid Completion Plan for the eradication of brucellosis. The objective of this plan is to have all states qualifying for Class Free status by 1998. Are you on-track to meet this goal? Response. APHIS' goal continues to be having all States qualify for Class Free status by the end of 1998. In May 1997, the Agency will meet with program officials of Class A States to plan accelerated program activities in the coming months to ensure that these States will meet the established goal. Mr. Skeen. The swine brucellosis program was expected to reach its goal of eradication by December 1996. Did you achieve this goal? Response. Increased surveillance has identified more affected herds than anticipated, thus the December 1996 goal will need to be extended. At this time no new date has been established. Mr. Skeen. APHIS along with other Federal agencies and Montana State officials are developing a long-term bison management plan to reduce the risk of spreading brucellosis and decreasing the need for lethal control methods. The environmental assessment was expected to be completed by May 1996. What is the status of this issue? Response. The Environmental Assessment--EA--was completed in August 1996, on the proposal to establish ``Brucellosis Management Areas'' in Montana where certain Yellowstone bison would be allowed to remain during specified periods of time. An amended interim management plan supported by the EA was implemented in October 1996. Several environmental groups filed a lawsuit and requested an injunction preventing implementation of these new procedures, but the injunction was denied. Due to the severe winter weather in Yellowstone National Park--YNP--and an increase in the bison population within the park, a greater number of bison migrated from YNP this season than in previous years. However, under the amended interim management plan, it was necessary to kill fewer bison than would have been killed under the original plan. Mr. Skeen. Why does the number of newly infected brucellosis herds increase from 141 in fiscal year 1995 to 202 in fiscal year 1996? Response. The number of newly infected brucellosis herds found in FY's 1995 and 1996 were transposed. The number of newly infected brucellosis herds has actually declined from 202 in FY 1995 to 141 in FY 1996. As of February 1997, we had identified 112 newly infected herds. Mr. Skeen. How many brucella vaccine research studies are scheduled for fiscal year 1997? Response. There are eight brucella vaccine research studies funded in FY 1997. These studies include: Brucella abortus RB51 vaccine safety and efficacy in (1) pregnant YNP bison in Idaho, (2) pregnant bison in Texas, and (3) pregnant elk in Wyoming; (4) Brucella abortus RB51 vaccine safety and efficacy in bison vaccinated as calves in Ames, Iowa; Brucella abortus RB51 vaccine safety in (5) bison calves, (6) bison bulls, and (7) bison yearlings; and, evaluation of the potential for shedding of (8) Brucella abortus RB51 from vaccinated animals into the environment and to other species. Mr. Skeen. An Environmental Impact Statement on brucellosis in Yellowstone National Park is scheduled for release in December 1997. Are there any preliminary findings and recommendations? If so, what are they? Response. There are no preliminary findings or recommendations at this time. Mr. Skeen. When do you expect to complete a project to study the transmission of brucellosis between bison in YNP? Response. The study is scheduled for completion in May 2001. Mr. Skeen. The U.S. Animal Health Association has urged State veterinarians to consider the threat of brucellosis among cattle shipped from Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. A number of States have restrictions on imports of untested cattle from Wyoming. Give the Committee an update of this issue. Response. Federal regulations permit cattle from Class Free States to move between states without being tested for brucellosis. The presence of free roaming brucellosis infected and exposed bison from YNP in the States adjacent to the park has raised questions of whether the Class Free designation of these States accurately reflects their disease status. This concern has caused certain States to impose additional testing requirements on cattle imported from Wyoming and Montana to protect their own cattle populations from possible infection. Currently, only Alabama requires cattle from Wyoming to undergo additional testing. Although more States are considering similar restrictions on cattle from this area, additional sanctions are on hold until an independent panel, facilitated by APHIS, conducts a review of Wyoming's brucellosis control program. On March 18, 1997, Oregon lifted its requirements for testing of Wyoming cattle until the Wyoming program review is completed. The panel's findings are expected to be completed by July 1, 1997. Mr. Skeen. Provide the Committee with an update on the status of the four swine herds affected with brucellosis in the U.S. Response. Those four herds have been depopulated. However, APHIS has placed 5 additional herds under quarantine in Florida. These herds are scheduled for depopulation in spring of 1997. As of March 28, there was one affected seine herd in Texas. This herd will be depopulated shortly. Screwworm Mr. Skeen. At this time last year, the U.S., Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras were screwworm-free and Nicaragua was the focal point of program eradication efforts. Give us a status of what has been accomplished to date and what still needs to be done. Response. Due to successful eradication and surveillance activities, Honduras was declared screwworm-free in August 1996 after country wide reviewswere completed to verify their screwworm-free status. The U.S. participation in the cooperative program ended in September 1996 and the Ministry of Agriculture in Honduras has assumed responsibility for continuing surveillance and inspections. Nicaragua is no longer considered infested but is still at risk from infested areas in Costa Rica. Only 11 screwworms have been detected in Nicaragua since July 1996 along the Costa Rican border. Operations are shifting from eradication to surveillance to ensure no additional infestations occur. The program currently releases approximately 80 million sterile flies per week over the entire country and conducts prevention, surveillance, and control activities. The program will maintain prevention and surveillance activities through the rest of 1997. The focal point of eradication is shifting to Costa Rica where cooperative program activities began in October 1995. In FY 1996, the program established operations in Costa Rica and is releasing approximately 60 million sterile flies per week from a dispersal center in Managua, Nicaragua. Active eradication and aerial dispersal began in April 1996. Aerial dispersal over the entire country began in October 1996. No positive screwworm samples have been collected so far in the program although full-scale field operations will begin in April of FY 1997. The sterile fly dispersal program is on schedule. We expect that eradication will be achieved in 1998 and that the Costa Rica-U.S. program will be closed in 1999. In Panama, eradication and surveillance activities have not begun. The program will conduct a privatization study, architectural and engineering work, and other tasks in preparation for construction of a new sterile screwworm facility in Panama. The Government of Panama provided a site near the international airport in Panama City. Mr. Skeen. Are you still on schedule to begin eradication efforts in Panama during fiscal year 1997, reaching the Darien Gap in fiscal year 1999? Response. The U.S. Department of State and APHIS have agreed to begin moving screwworm program personnel from Mexico to Panama by July 1997. We expect to begin eradication activities in Panama in FY 1998 and anticipate having screwworm eradicated down to the Darien Gap by the end of FY 1999. Once eradication complete, the program will begin maintaining a biological barrier. Mr. Skeen. Your agency hired an independent outside contractor to study issues related to building a new rearing facility at the Isthmus of Panama. What were the results and recommendations of this study? Response. The independent study team report contained three major recommendations: (1) the new sterile fly production facility should be located in Panama; (2) the five APHIS positions, currently located in Mexico City, should be relocated to Panama to begin the many preliminary tasks necessary in organizing eradication activities and initiating plant construction; and (3) the new plant should be built and operated by the bilateral Panama-U.S. Commission, but that every effort should be made to identify components of plant operations that can be cost effectively privatized. Mr. Skeen. Briefly describe the concerns of the Department of State and the government of Panama concerning the construction of this facility. Response. The main concern of the U.S. Embassy in Panama is privatization of the proposed screwworm facility in Panama. Embassy officials have stated that the U.S. Government policy in recent years has been to encourage Central American countries to privatize state- operated activities such as telephone utility companies. These same officials feel that the APHIS plan to operate and manage a screwworm facility in Panama through a bilateral commission structure is inconsistent with privatization policies and would send the wrong signal to other countries. The principal concern of the Government of Panama is to start the program as soon as possible. In February 1994, an agreement was signed to conduct a screwworm eradication program through a bilateral Panama- U.S. Commission. In May 1994, the Government of Panama deposited more than $11 million in the Joint Commission bank account in Panama as part of its contribution toward screwworm eradication and construction of the proposed plant. The Panamanian Minister of Agriculture has publicly stated that the Government of Panama has fulfilled all of its commitments under the agreement and wants the program to begin. Mr. Skeen. You state in the budget justifications that once the screwworm program reaches the Darien Gap in Panama, other affected nations will provide assistance to maintain the barrier. Do you already have financial commitments from these other nations? If so, how much will you receive from them? If not, what makes you think they will be willing or able to contribute financially to the program? Response. The only other country that has committed to contributing to the barrier maintenance program at the Darien Gap is Panama. The maintenance program will be funded jointly by the United States and Panama through a joint Panama-U.S. Screwworm Commission. Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras maintain ongoing commitments to prevention and surveillance activities that ensure their screwworm-free status. At this point we do not expect other countries will provide contributions to the barrier maintenance program at the Darien Gap. If other countries, or groups of countries, in the region detect screwworms at levels that pose a risk to domestic and export markets, they may be able to purchase flies from the Panama facility at levels sufficient to conduct control programs. If this should occur, the Panama-U.S. Commission will take steps to ensure sufficient supplies for the primary objective of barrier maintenance at the Darien Gap. Through collaboration among the Panama-U.S. Commission and nearby countries, the integrity of the barrier can be maintained. Although few countries in the hemisphere have the financial capacity to conduct screwworm control programs alone, countries that experience screwworm populations that pose significant risk to domestic and export markets might be willing cooperate with each other to purchase flies from the Commission. Foot-and-Mouth Disease Mr. Skeen. APHIS and the Colombian Agriculture Institute, ICA, operate a cost sharing foot-and-mouth eradication program. What is the status of this initiative as well as its cost? Response. APHIS provides financial and technical assistance to the cooperative Foot-and-Mouth Disease--FMD--control program in a 50/50 cost-sharing agreement with the ICA. The program continues to maintain the FMD-free area inColombia, which is contiguous with and southeast of the border with Panama, and serves as the ``first line of defense'' for preventing the spread of FMD northward into Panama, Central America, Mexico, and the United States. This free area has nearly one million head of cattle. The total operational and support costs for this work was $1,871,000 in FY 1996 and is estimated to be $1,838,000 in FY 1997. In FY 1998, APHIS is requesting to maintain program activities at the current level. ICA has voluntarily increased its contribution to cover 63 percent of the program costs. Organizations of cattle producers also contribute funds to supplement program costs. In FY 1995, the Colombian livestock sector started participating more actively in FMD eradication activities. From 1995 to 1997, Colombian cattle producers have contributed approximately US$6 million to promote FMD eradication. In FY 1996, ICA and USDA agreed to expand the FMD program eastward toward the Venezuela border to substantially reduce the risk of FMD introduction into Panama and the FMD-free areas of Colombia. Currently, this expansion is only active on the north coast of Colombia. The presence of FMD in Central America would pose a constant threat of spread to the United States. By maintaining the capability to quickly detect and diagnose threats to Central America, we are providing an extremely cost-effective insurance policy for our own industry and economy. Success of this program can be measured by the gradual increase in the FMD-free areas in Colombia, which results in increased protection to Panama, Central America, Mexico, and the United States. This program, which provides one of two FMD barrier programs in the world, serves as a model for other countries seeking to eradicate FMD. Mr. Skeen. Bovine embryos were imported from Venezuela and Zimbabwe in fiscal year 1996. Both countries are affected with Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD). What are these embryos used for and why are they imported from FMD positive countries. Response. The embryos were transferred to female cattle to produce offspring. The purpose of these two commercial projects was to enhance the U.S. bovine genetic pool with cattle breeds not previously available in the United States. APHIS veterinarians participated directly in both import projects to ensure that safety and biosecurity measures were strictly enforced. Mediterranean Fruit Fly Mr. Skeen. How much funding will be devoted to each country where medfly work is being done in fiscal year 1997? Response. APHIS cooperates with Mexico and Guatemala in eradication, trapping, and sterile fly production activities to exclude Mediterranean fruit fly--Medfly--from the United States. In FY 1997, APHIS will devote $1,867,000 to direct eradication activities in Mexico and $3,410,000 for those activities in Guatemala. In the United States, $6,700,000 is devoted to production and prevention activities. Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 99 of last year's hearing recording the total funding for medfly work and the source of the funding. [The information follows:] Authorized funding from CCC for medfly emergency in California \1\ Fiscal year: 1990................................................ $31,424,000 1991................................................ 5,710,215 1992................................................ 9,500,000 1993................................................ 25,860,000 1994................................................ 4,118,000 1995................................................ 10,261,000 1996................................................ 10,000,000 1997................................................................ \1\ Amounts shown were authorized; however, amounts obligated differ because any unobligated amounts carried forward to the next fiscal year. Following successful termination of the Medfly Emergency program in California in June 1996, a Medfly prevention program began in July 1996 in the Los Angeles Basin to mitigate the risk of further Medfly introductions into the area. The cost of the current Prevention Release Program is estimated at $10 million per year--shared equally by USDA and the California Department of Food and Agriculture. APHIS contributes $5 million from appropriated funding. Mr. Skeen. Briefly describe the new Temperature Sensitive Lethal strain of sterile Medfly and tell the Committee how it differs from the old strain. Response. The Temperature Sensitive Lethal--TSL--strain has a mutant gene in the females that is sensitive to temperature. Female Medflies with this temperature sensitive trait die at temperatures above 31+C. Males have the dominant wild gene and are not temperature sensitive. If all eggs are put in a water bath, at 32+C, the females are killed and the males survive. This eliminates the cost of rearing females which are not required in sterile insect release techniques. This makes the TSL strain cheaper to produce. We also expect the TSL strain will be more effective in eradication efforts. APHIS plans to fully integrate TSL into Moscamed operation over the next two years. Research by ARS in Hawaii and the International Atomic Energy Agency shows that all male strains caused significantly better Medfly population suppression that sexually mixed steriles. The TSL Response strain provides for efficient, effective, and ecologically safe Medfly eradication programs by offering several advantages over current methods including: (a) an estimated 30-40 percent saving in sterile fly rearing costs; (b) avoids ovipositional ``sting'' damage on fruit by sterile females which makes the fruit susceptible to disease and insects; (c) more effective and competitive male flies which disperse better are more likely to mate with more wild females; and (d) better genetic stability than other all-male strains. Pseudorabies Mr. Skeen. Please update the tables that appear on pages 53 and 54 of last year's hearing record showing the amounts, both federal and non-federal, that each state expended on the pseudorabies program as well as the stage each state was in to include fiscal year 1996 actuals. [The information follows:] PSEUDORABIES EXPENDITURES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year 1996 actual Fiscal 1997 estimate Fiscal year 1998 ---------------------------------------------------- estimate State ------------------------- Federal Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama........................... $4,808 $81,235 $5,048 $82,860 $5,048 $82,860 Alaska............................ 477 4,000 501 4,000 501 4,000 Arizona........................... 452 7,419 475 7,567 475 7,567 Arkansas.......................... 12,854 21,771 13,497 22,651 13,497 22,651 California........................ 4,664 622,481 4,898 634,931 4,898 634,931 Colorado.......................... 87,383 2,000 91,752 2,000 91,752 2,000 Connecticut....................... 2,093 4,184 2,198 4,100 2,198 4,100 Delaware.......................... 1,708 5,000 1,794 5,000 1,794 5,000 Florida........................... 87,234 0 91,596 0 91,596 0 Georgia........................... 9,573 481,007 10,052 490,627 10,052 500,440 Hawaii............................ 226 146,626 237 149,559 237 149,559 Idaho............................. 7,308 0 7,674 0 7,674 0 Illinois.......................... 219,451 2,022,120 230,424 2,062,562 230,424 2,062,562 Indiana........................... 92,498 1,000,000 97,122 1,000,000 97,122 1,000,000 Iowa.............................. 925,716 885,958 972,002 903,677 972,002 903,677 Kansas............................ 13,684 19,016 14,368 19,500 14,368 19,500 Kentucky.......................... 9,951 101,620 10,448 103,652 10,448 103,652 Louisiana......................... 57,395 0 60,265 0 60,265 0 Maine............................. 1,520 27,000 1,596 27,000 1,596 27,000 Maryland.......................... 527,460 0 531,906 0 516,342 0 Massachusetts..................... 8,549 59,000 8,977 59,000 8,977 59,000 Michigan.......................... 144,179 284,331 151,388 290,000 151,388 290,000 Minnesota......................... 622,544 547,724 631,744 558,678 613,259 550,670 Mississippi....................... 8,613 35,000 9,044 35,000 9,044 35,000 Missouri.......................... 200,209 185,135 210,219 190,000 210,219 190,000 Montana........................... 473 10,978 497 12,000 497 12,000 Nebraska.......................... 162,258 635,707 170,371 648,421 170,371 640,421 Nevada............................ 458 18,790 481 19,000 481 19,000 New Hampshire..................... 2,315 3,000 2,431 3,000 2,431 3,000 New Jersey........................ 28,275 41,500 29,689 41,500 29,689 41,500 New Mexico........................ 11,919 0 12,515 0 12,515 0 New York.......................... 95,017 10,000 99,768 10,000 99,768 10,000 North Carolina.................... 282,825 3,238,274 296,966 3,303,039 296,966 3,303,039 North Dakota...................... 11,717 7,830 12,303 8,000 12,303 8,000 Ohio.............................. 87,684 650,000 92,069 650,000 92,069 650,000 Oklahoma.......................... 46,820 56,670 49,161 57,000 49,161 57,000 Oregon............................ 522 8,191 548 0 548 0 Pennsylvania...................... 91,313 429,933 95,878 438,532 95,878 438,532 Rhode Island...................... 5,386 1,400 5,656 1,400 5,656 1,400 South Carolina.................... 14,540 200,000 15,267 200,000 15,267 200,000 South Dakota...................... 67,762 0 71,150 0 71,150 0 Tennessee......................... 12,412 259,696 13,033 264,890 13,033 264,890 Texas............................. 109,193 335,346 114,652 342,053 114,652 342,053 Utah.............................. 339 8,000 356 8,000 356 8,000 Vermont........................... 973 0 1,022 0 1,022 0 Virginia.......................... 79,840 185,637 83,832 189,350 83,832 189,350 Washington........................ 617 5,000 648 5,000 648 5,000 West Virginia..................... 4,083 0 4,287 0 4,287 0 Wisconsin......................... 70,433 323,533 73,955 330,000 73,955 330,000 Wyoming........................... 321 3,500 337 3,500 337 3,500 Wash., DC......................... 96,042 0 100,839 0 97,888 0 Puerto Rico....................... 10,537 0 11,064 0 11,064 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total....................... 4,344,623 12,975,612 4,518,000 13,187,049 4,481,000 13,180,854 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- States enrolled in the program and the Stage of each as of January 1, 1997, are as follows: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stage II Stage II/III Stage III Stage III/IV Stage IV Statge V\1\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Iowa............................... Indiana............... California............ Wisconsin............ Alabama.............. Alaska. Michigan.............. Florida............... Arizona.............. Colorado. Minnesota............. Georgia............... Arkansas............. Connecticut. Nebraska.............. Hawaii................ Kentucky............. Delaware. North Carolina........ Illinois.............. Oklahoma............. Idaho. Kansas................ South Dakota......... Maine. Louisiana............. Tennessee............ Maryland. Massachusetts......... U.S. Virgin Islands.. Mississippi. Missouri.............. Montana. New Jersey............ Nevada. Ohio.................. New Hampshire. Pennsylvania.......... New Mexico. Texas................. New York. North Dakota. Oregon. Puerto Rico. Rhode Island. South Carolina. Utah. Vermont. Virginia. Washington. West Virginia. Wyoming. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Stage V is the final stage in which a State is declared pseudorabies free. Mr. Skeen. The pseudorabies program began in January 1989 and was expected to take 10 years to complete. Is this still an achievable goal? Response. APHIS expects to complete the pseudorabies eradication program by December 2000. Noxious Weeds Mr. Skeen. After completing a Federal Weeds Policy in fiscal year 1994, your agency decided to develop an APHIS Weed Implementation Plan. This plan was completed in March 1996. At the time of last year's hearing you stated that you did not have the authority to fully implement the plan. What is the status of its implementation? What authority do you need for its implementation? Response. Our proposed Consolidated Statutes still have not been enacted and, therefore, we still do not have authority to fully implement our plan. We need the authority to amend the Federal Noxious Weeds Act--FNWA. Webelieve that the FNWA does not provide sufficient flexibility to appropriately address noxious weed issues. It is too prescriptive in its requirements and its approach. It is also inconsistent with other plant quarantine laws. Specifically, we need the authority to regulate the interstate movement of listed weeds without having to establish a quarantine. This authority is necessary to thwart the movement of designated weeds. Also, we need emergency noxious weed listing authority, which would prevent the dissemination of foreign weeds by permitting a timely response when an infestation of a potentially harmful weed is first detected. We feel that the proposed Consolidated Statutes is a more effective approach to noxious weed problems than the existing FNWA. Our legislation would repeal the FNWA and replace it with a more flexible authority to regulate the movement of noxious weeds and cooperate with States and others to address noxious weed problems. Mr. Skeen. Provide the Committee with a description of the plan. When do you anticipate it will be operational? Response. The APHIS Weed Implementation Plan includes distinct new activities that will allow APHIS to explore innovative technologies in weed management. Specific activities in the plan include regulating weeds that threaten agricultural or other areas, regulating listed weed species, excluding designated weeds that are absent from or in limited distribution in the United States, and regulating the interstate movement of designated weeds for which no control program has been established. These new activities are designed to satisfy concerns that have been expressed by several APHIS customers, including several State Departments of Agriculture and the Office of Technology Assessment-- OTA. The plan outlines APHIS strategy for preventing the introduction and spread of non-indigenous weeds into and through interstate commerce of the United States. The Plan will become operational as soon as our proposed Consolidated Statutes is enacted and adequate funding is made available. Mr. Skeen. Did you discover any new noxious weed introductions in the U.S. last year? Response. Yes, we did. In the spring of 1996, we discovered Wetland Nightshade in 500 acres on five sites in several southwest Florida counties. This invasive plant from Central America threatens the Florida Everglades and other freshwater wetlands in south Florida. Currently, we are cooperating with the University of Florida, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the South Florida Water Management District to conduct an eradication feasibility study of an infestation that occurs along the Peace River near Arcadia, Florida. In addition, we will be conducting a survey to determine the plant's total distribution in south Florida. If we deem eradication achievable, we may consider initiating a cooperative eradication project on this plant in south Florida in the spring of 1998. Witchweed Mr. Skeen. Witchweed has been eradicated in all but two states, North and South Carolina. By the end of fiscal year 1996, you expected there to be less than 12,000 infested acres in both states. Where do we stand today and what are your projections for fiscal year 1997? Response. Currently, there are approximately 10,000 invested acres in both States. By the end of FY 1997, we expect that figure to be reduced to 8,000 acres. Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 55 of last year's hearing record, showing the total acres infested, the acres released per fiscal year and totals, and the cost of the program, to include fiscal year 1996 actuals and fiscal year 1997 estimates. [The information follows:] WITCHWEED PROGRAM STATUS AND COST ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Acres released Cumulative Total acres from Total acres acres Fiscal year infested at quarantine in release terminated Total acres Cost end of during the category \2\ from released \3\ fiscal year fiscal year project \1\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1993............................ 38,000 10,000 196,000 191,600 387,600 $5,588,081 1994............................ 28,000 12,000 216,020 193,000 409,020 4,086,032 1995............................ 19,500 9,000 250,500 196,800 447,300 1,955,974 1996............................ 13,334 7,665 175,000 251,721 426,721 1,701,175 1997 est........................ 8,000 7,000 162,000 269,800 431,800 1,662,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The figures shown in this column reflect the number of acres ``eradicated'' during a particular fiscal year. These acres will undergo 10 years of post-eradication surveys to verify eradication. Only after these 10 years will they be terminated from the project, assuming the surveys are negative. \2\ The acres in ``release Category'' will undergo 10 years of post-eradication surveys to verify eradication. The figures in this column will not necessarily increase by the amount of acres released from quarantine in the following fiscal year for two reasons. Some of the acres in the ``Release Category'' may become reinfested and others may be declared terminated. \3\ The term ``Total Acres Released'' represents the sum of the cumulative number of acres that have been terminated from the project and the number of acres in ``released category'' at the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Skeen. In fiscal year 1996, APHIS established a Weed Team to coordinate the agency's noxious weed program and develop a Weed Implementation Plan. Who serves on this Weed Team? Response. Our Weed Team is comprised of our Noxious Weeds Coordinator, a botanist, an expert on environmental assessments and pesticide registrations, an agreements specialist, the Director of our National Biological Control Institute, a port operations specialist, and a weed scientist. Mr. Skeen. In the budget justifications you state that several critical items in the plan related to emergency listing and regulation of interstate movement of Federal Noxious Weeds have not been implemented, pending passage ofthe proposed Consolidated Statutes or amendment or reinterpretation of the Federal Noxious Weed Act. Would you please elaborate on this statement in further detail for the Committee? Response. In our proposed Consolidated Statutes, we request emergency listing authority for noxious weeds. This authority would enable APHIS to prevent the dissemination of foreign weeds by permitting a timely response when an infestation of a potentially harmful weed is first detected. The current listing process mandated by the FNWA is long, cumbersome, and requires a public hearing. In addition, we are very limited in the emergency actions we can take if a new weed is introduced. Also in the Consolidated Statutes, we request authority to regulate the interstate movement of listed weeds for which no control or eradication program has been established, without having to establish a quarantine. This authority is necessary to effectively thwart the movement of designated weeds. Mr. Skeen. What other agencies are members of the USDA Weed Coordinating Committee and the Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds? Response. Besides APHIS, the USDA Weed Coordinating Committee includes the ARS, the Cooperative State Research Extension and Education Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Economic Research Service, the Forest Service, and the Agricultural Marketing Service. The Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds consists of the seven agencies that comprise the USDA Weed Coordinating Committee, along with 9 other agencies from four other cabinet Departments. These agencies are the Federal Highway Administration from the Department of Transportation; the Armed Forces Pest Management Board; the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the U.S. Geological Survey from the Department of the Interior; and an agency within the Department of Energy that is determined based on the particular issue in question. Boll Weevil Mr. Skeen. The goal of the boll weevil program is to eradicate it from all cotton growing areas in the U.S. by the year 2003. Last year east Mississippi and the Lower Rio Grande Valley voted to discontinue the program. What impact is this having on the program? Response. This is having no immediate impact on the program other than an initial negative perception by growers that the program has failed. More recently, the eastern strip of Mississippi has voted to resume the program and that initial perception has been reversed. Even though the earlier situation is not crucial right now, it will become a problem in 4 to 6 years when Texas nears eradication, which is projected to occur in FY 2003. The problem would occur because of the possibility of eradicated areas becoming re-infested. We would certainly like the see that region re-join the program and we believe this is more likely to occur once the programs in Texas and northeast Mexico show some success. Mr. Skeen. Have all Mississippi growers passed a referendum to restart and expand the program. What is the status of this issue? Response. Zones 2, 3, and 4 have passed referenda to re-start the program and zone 1 (the western part of Mississippi) is currently voting. Results from this vote will be available by mid-April. Zones 3 and 4 will begin in the summer of 1997, zone 2 in the fall of 1998, and zone 1 (pending passage of the referendum) would begin in the fall of 1999. Mr. Skeen. What about the growers in the Lower Rio Grande Valley? Response. The growers may petition the Texas Agriculture Commissioner at any time for a new referendum. To this point, however, they have done nothing to indicate a desire to re-start the program. Mr. Skeen. Have any states recently passed an assessment referendum for the boll weevil program? Do you expect any states to pass referenda in fiscal year 1997? Response. Yes, they have. Since November 1996, zones 2, 3, 4 in Mississippi, southwest Tennessee, the Red River Valley in west Louisiana, southwest Arkansas, and the St. Lawrence area in west Texas have passed assessment referenda for the boll weevil program. Yes, we expect States to pass referenda in FY 1997. We expect zone 1 in Mississippi and Mesilla Valley in south-central New Mexico to pass referenda in FY 1997. If these referenda pass, program activity in each area would likely begin in the fall of 1997 in New Mexico and in 1999 in zone 1 of Mississippi. Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 57 of last year's hearing record, showing boll weevil funding, to include fiscal year 1998. [The information follows:] BOLL WEEVIL FUNDING [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year-- Region ------------------------------------------------------ 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Central eradication and suppression...................... $984 $4,756 $4,920 $12,360 $4,133 Southeast eradication.................................... 13,282 12,664 11,663 4,906 2,031 Southwest eradication.................................... 1,117 583 463 55 284 ------------------------------------------------------ Total.............................................. 15,383 18,003 17,046 17,321 6,448 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note.--FY 1997 total includes $1.560 million in carryover funds. The FY 1998 total includes $72,000 in carryover funds. Mr. Skeen. For the record, describe in detail the new boll weevil loan program. Response. The Farm Services Agency--FSA--loan program provides program managers with the capability to obtain relatively large sums on short notice to respond to significant weather changes. The cotton crop must be protected, and in some years this requires more resources than in others. Boll Weevil Eradication Foundations are non-profit organizations which have little, if any, of the collateral needed for commercial bank loans. These loans are intended to enable the Foundations to borrow funds for meeting increased cost-share requirements. Therefore, they will greatly enhance program expansion plans in Texas and the Mid-South. These loans will enable the Foundations, and as a result, the growers, to spread the relatively high initial cost of the program over several years, making their annual contribution or assessment more acceptable. FSA loans tend to stabilize on-going programs, which otherwise might experience occasional cashflow problems. Mr. Skeen. In 1996, Mexico proposed a pilot five year boll weevil eradication program in the northeastern Mexican state of Tamaulipas. What is the status of this program? Response. In the pilot program, the Mexican government, the state of Tamaulipas, and farmers share program costs. The Mexican government, through Sanidad Vegetal, provided 1 million pesos in 1996 to start the program. Initial program activities began in the summer of 1996 and involve cotton growing regions in the southern part of Tamaulipas. Activities involve the use of chemical attractants and trapping. Success in these initial locations will determine when and how the program will expand into adjacent cotton-growing areas in the State. APHIS believes certain technical and risk assessment issues still need to be resolved. The eradication plan relies heavily on biological control measures whose efficacy is not proven for eradication. Further, the area chosen for this pilot effort has plants besides cotton which could act as boll weevil hosts and, therefore, could pose a significant problem for a comprehensive eradication effort. Mexico and the United States will both benefit greatly from a boll weevil program that is based on sound science. We will continue to monitor control efforts in northern Mexico, and to work with Mexican Government officials and grower representatives. Bovine Tuberculosis Mr. Skeen. The goal of the bovine tuberculosis program is to eradicate it from the U.S. by 1998. Is this date still the goal? Response. APHIS is currently re-evaluating the eradication date for the bovine tuberculosis program. While improvements were made in FY 1996, it appears unlikely that the FY 1998 eradication date will be met. A new date has not yet been determined. Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the ELISA diagnostic test for Cervidae that was developed at Colorado State University? Response. The Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay--ELISA--diagnositic test for Cervidae continues to be evaluated for use in Cervidae, Camelids, and Bovidae. Based on tests conducted by the Colorado State University, APHIS intends to use the ELISA diagnostic test as a supplementary testing tool for cattle, bison, and elk along with other conventional tuberculin tests. In addition, the ELISA may potentially serve as a primary test for camels, llamas and other animals for which no other tuberculin test exists. In FY 1997, APHIS is providing $50,000 to Colorado State University to continue its validity study of the ELISA as a serological test and to determine its epidemiological usefulness in the National Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication program. Mr. Skeen. There have been some discussions about the problem of Mexican cattle being the single biggest traceback of tuberculosis outbreaks in this country. APHIS expected a final rule by the end of fiscal year 1996 pertaining to regionalization which establishes importation criteria for ruminants and swine based on the level of disease risk in specific geographical regions. The movement of Mexican cattle was to be addressed as part of this rule. What is the status of this issue? Response. In April 1996, APHIS published a proposed rule establishing new criteria for allowing or excluding importations of animals and animal products based on regionalization of animal diseases and scientific risk assessments. The movement of cattle was addressed generally as part of the regionalization framework. We are currently reviewing and responding to public comments received on this proposed rule. A final rule is expected to be issued by the end of calendar year 1997. Mr. Skeen. Of the 136 tuberculosis tracebacks completed in fiscal year 1996, 84 percent were tracebacked to Mexico. What is being done about this obvious problems? Response. Overall, tuberculosis cases in Mexican cattle continue to diminish. The 136 tuberculosis cases detected in FY 1996 represent an 80 percent decline from a high of 613 cases in FY 1992. This reduction is the result of the United States' ban on imported Holstein cattle and Mexico's implementation of their National bovine tuberculosis eradication program in June 1993. APHIS veterinarians work closely with Mexican animal health officials on training, evaluating Mexican States' programs and supporting surveillance programs. We expect this declining trend in tuberculosis Mexican cattle to continue helping us attain our goal of eradicating tuberculosis in the United States. Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the tuberculosis infected dairy herds in the El Paso Milkshed area? Response. There are currently 4 tuberculosis-infected dairy herds-- totaling 30,000 animals--in the El Paso milkshed area. These herds are still trying to test out of quarantine and it is unlikely that they will be declared free by FY 1998. Although no new target date has been set by APHIS, it is estimated that these herds will not be declared free until after the year 2000. Due to the large size of the herds, depopulation has not been an economically feasible option for either the herd owners or the Federal Government. A concerted effort between APHIS and the herd owners will be needed to eliminate tuberculosis from these herds without depopulation. This effort will require herd management changes to minimize intraherd spread, careful selection of replacement animals, and the use of old and new testing procedures to their maximum potential. Mr. Skeen. Describe how proposed regulations would decrease the risks associated with tuberculosis exposure from imported ruminants? Response. The proposed criteria for animal disease regionalization establish requirements for importing ruminants and swine, and products of ruminants and swine, from foreign ``regions'' based on scientific risk assessments. Tests and other risk mitigation factors would raise the health status of imported ruminants to a level that is equivalent to the United States' national herd. Mr. Skeen. How much did APHIS spend in fiscal year 1996 to support tuberculosis research initiatives at Colorado State University, Cornell University, and Texas A&M University? Response. In FY 1996, APHIS provided $50,000 to Colorado State University for tuberculosis research activities. No funding was provided to Cornell University or Texas A&M University. ISAP Implementation Mr. Skeen. A contract to implement the integrated systems acquisition project, which is designed to replace the agency's computer system, was awarded to International Business Machines. The total contract amount is $250 million, but other USDA agencies can purchase up to 50 percent of this amount and other non-USDA agencies can purchase up to 20 percent of the total amount. Provide a detailed breakout of this contract including what agencies have used this contract, how much has been used and for what purpose, and what future plans are for the remainder of the $250 million. Response. The ISAP contract awarded to IBM is an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity requirements contract with a delegation of procurement authority up to $250 million. Actual APHIS expenditures will depend upon specific goods and services, but are likely to be substantially less than $250 million. Other USDA agencies can purchase above the $250 million delegation by up to 50 percent or $125 million, and other Departments can purchase above the delegation up to 20 percent or $50 million. The following table shows the other agencies using the procurement authority provided in the ISAP contract: PROCUREMENT ACTIVITY BY OTHER USDA AGENCIES [Dollars in thousands] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year-- Agency Purpose ------------------- 1996 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Farm Service Agency/CCC......... Local Area $52,338 $1,941 Networks; Wide Area Networks; Voicemail. Office of Operations............ Analysis, design, 37 ........ implementation of personnel tracking system. Cooperative, State, Research Processors, 111 ........ Education, and Extension memory, disk Service. drive, tape drives. Forest Service.................. Hard disk, memory, 3 ........ processor, monitor, fax modem, Ethernet adapter. Natural Resources Conservation On-net agency 2,017 ........ Service. licenses, maintenance, netscape for Unix. ------------------- Total..................... .................. 54,506 1,941 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears in page 63 of last year's hearing record showing a complete breakout of the appropriated funds for the information systems acquisition project to include fiscal year 1996 actuals and fiscal year 1998 estimates. [The information follows:] INFORMATION SYSTEMS ACQUISITION PROJECT FUNDS--FISCAL YEAR 1992-1998 [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Funds Fiscal year appropriated Funds spent ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1992......................................... $2,507 $1,078 1993......................................... 2,507 2,099 1994......................................... 3,500 2,829 1995......................................... 3,498 553 1996......................................... 4,055 825 1997 (estimated)............................. 4,000 12,723 1998 (proposed).............................. 4,000 4,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Note.--The table reflects ISAP-specific appropriations and spending. We anticipate spending $31.5 million Agencywide in FY 1998. Mr. Skeen. In the budget justifications you state that the technology requirements of the ISAP contract were modified to integrate the current legacy environment. Would you please elaborate on this statement in further detail. Response. The solution offered originally on the contract required a total conversion from the existing legacy environment. The costs far exceeded likely available funding. Also, the Agency could not afford the technical isolation between the two environments within the program areas during the transition. The transition will have to be accomplished over a longer timeframe and require linkages to the legacy environment as the new platform is installed. The contract was modified to include personal computers with the capability to perform in both environments. Also a legacy operating system was added which requires less money and technical support to implement. These changes will allow the legacy environment to coexist and participate during the implementation. No significant disruption in service or work is anticipated using this new strategy. Mr. Skeen. The ISAP contract was awarded for $250 million. How much does APHIS actually plan to spend? Response. The reduced costs resulting from the changes outlined in the implementation should allow APHIS to implement, support and maintain the new environment for approximately $130 million which includes money appropriated for ISAP and other program activities over the life of the contract which is 10 years. Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 64 of last year's hearing record showing the total number of staff years funded through the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection program, both the user fee program and the appropriated program, to include fiscal year 1996 actuals and fiscal year 1997 estimates. [The information follows:] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year Appropriated User fees Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1990.......................... $1,785 ( \1\) $2,785 1991.......................... 462 $1,338 1,800 1992.......................... 502 1,474 1,976 1993.......................... 546 1,529 2,075 1994.......................... 598 1,604 2,202 1995.......................... 613 1,872 2,485 1996.......................... 613 1,970 2,583 1997.......................... 625 2,140 2,765 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Collection of user fees started in FY 1991. Mr. Skeen. Also update the following table showing the amount of AQI fees collected, the amount spent, and the carryout levels. [The information follows:] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year Revenue Obligations Balance ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1991.......................... $26,520,395 $4,991,139 $21,529,256 1992.......................... 114,219,287 85,922,000 49,826,543 1993.......................... 104,429,112 83,362,000 70,893,655 1994.......................... 99,804,159 98,257,160 72,440,654 1995.......................... 106,625,905 105,907,999 73,158,560 1996.......................... 105,897,049 118,607,891 60,447,718 1997 \1\...................... 113,079,566 134,108,000 39,419,284 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Estimate based on new fees implemented July 1, 1997 and the latest current available data. Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on pages 66 through 68 showing, by airport, the resources for FTEs and funds used to reflect your fiscal year 1997 actuals and fiscal year 1998 budget proposal. [The information follows:] AQI RESOURCES AND FTE's BY AIRPORT [Dollars in thousands] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Location 1995 1996 1997 1998 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Funding FTEs Funding FTEs Funding FTEs Funding FTEs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Airborne Park, OH....................... $16 0.3 $12 0.5 $13 0.5 $13 0.5 Albuquerque, NM......................... 10 0.2 8 0.1 9 0.1 10 0.1 Anchorage, AK........................... 355 5.4 391 5.7 416 6.7 441 6.7 Andrew AFB, MD.......................... 101 1.0 102 1.0 108 1.0 115 1.0 Atlanta, GA............................. 2,175 39.0 2,435 43.5 2,730 46.6 2,976 48.8 Austin, TX.............................. 7 0.1 7 0.1 63 1.2 65 1.2 Bangor, ME.............................. 197 3.4 229 3.4 243 3.4 257 3.4 Baton Rouge, LA......................... 18 0.4 18 0.4 17 0.2 18 0.2 Billings, MT............................ 1 0.1 ........ ...... 1 ...... 1 ...... Bismarck, ND............................ 11 0.2 4 0.1 4 0.1 4 0.1 Bradley, IA............................. 63 1.1 80 1.0 85 1.0 90 1.0 Brownsville, TX......................... 80 1.8 81 1.8 99 1.9 115 2.4 Burlington, VT.......................... 30 0.6 33 0.3 35 0.3 37 0.3 B.W.I., MD.............................. 204 2.0 307 3.0 325 3.0 345 3.0 Calexico, CA............................ 3 0.1 2 ...... 2 ...... 2 ...... Charlotte, NC........................... 396 7.6 390 7.7 415 8.0 425 8.0 Cheyenne, WY............................ ........ ...... ........ ...... 4 0.1 4 0.1 Cleveland, OH........................... 40 0.8 120 2.0 127 2.0 135 2.0 Corpus Christi, TX...................... 13 0.4 13 0.4 ........ ...... ........ ...... Dallas, TX.............................. 1,171 27.8 1,354 31.8 1,640 32.8 1,728 32.8 Dayton, OH.............................. 22 0.4 40 0.7 42 0.7 45 0.7 Des Moines, IA.......................... 6 0.1 6 0.1 7 0.2 7 0.2 Detroit, MI............................. 1.026 12.7 1,171 16.0 1,301 17.0 1,439 18.0 Dover AFB, DE........................... 172 3.5 180 3.3 191 3.3 202 3.3 Dulles IA, VA........................... 780 14.0 1,217 18.0 1,353 19.0 1,435 19.0 Eagle Pass, TX.......................... ........ ...... ........ ...... 12 0.3 13 0.3 El Paso, TX............................. 118 2.7 120 2.7 167 3.4 183 3.8 Ft. Lauderdale, FL...................... 247 4.1 258 4.3 288 4.8 305 4.8 Galveston, TX........................... 5 0.1 5 0.1 2 ...... 2 ...... Gen. Mitchell Fld, WI................... 101 2.0 110 2.0 117 2.0 124 2.0 Harlingen, TX........................... 26 0.6 26 0.6 43 0.4 44 0.4 Hidalgo, TX............................. 7 0.2 7 0.2 106 1.7 147 1.9 Halo, HI................................ 328 7.7 381 9.3 398 8.8 422 8.8 Honolulu, HI............................ 6,543 136.7 6,774 132.0 7,923 145.9 8,998 160.9 Houston, TX............................. 1,469 34.0 1,621 37.1 1,792 40.1 1,954 40.1 Indianapolis, IN........................ 39 0.5 205 3.0 217 3.0 230 3.0 Inglewood, CA........................... 6,468 128.0 7,142 133.0 8.056 141.0 9,339 161.0 JFK, NY................................. 8,556 132.0 9,181 141.0 9,861 150.0 10,778 171.0 Cahill, HI.............................. 1,130 34.7 1,080 33.7 1,127 34.7 1,314 37.7 Hailua-Kona, HI......................... 582 14.8 530 14.7 745 16.8 745 16.6 Lakewood, CO............................ 185 1.8 132 1.8 161 2.6 171 2.6 Laredo, TX.............................. 110 2.6 113 2.6 84 1.6 87 1.6 Las Vegas, NV........................... 72 ...... 50 ...... 93 0.5 99 0.5 Lanai, HI............................... ........ ...... ........ ...... 162 2.6 172 2.6 Lihue, HI............................... 569 13.5 561 12.7 439 11.9 465 11.9 Lincoln, NE............................. 4 0.1 4 0.1 6 0.1 6 0.1 Little Rock, AR......................... 23 0.4 23 0.4 17 0.3 18 0.3 Logan IA, MA............................ 767 12.0 927 15.0 983 15.0 1,042 15.0 Louisville, KY.......................... 377 6.0 316 6.0 418 6.7 445 7.0 Martinsburg, WV......................... 6 0.1 8 0.1 8 0.1 8 0.1 Mayaguez, PR............................ 357 10.0 498 12.8 478 12.2 507 12.2 Miami, FL............................... 6,775 126.4 9,475 184.5 10,373 199.0 10,995 199.0 Nashville, TN........................... 374 6.0 529 9.3 540 9.3 553 9.3 New Orleans, LA......................... 347 7.6 354 7.6 333 5.5 343 5.5 Newark, NJ.............................. 1,744 19.3 2,224 22.0 2,674 30.0 2,780 30.0 Newburgh, NY............................ 97 2.0 134 2.0 142 2.0 151 2.0 Nogales, AZ............................. 1 ...... 1 ...... 17 0.4 17 0.4 Norfolk, VA............................. 62 1.0 64 1.0 68 1.0 72 1.0 Oakland, CA............................. ........ ...... 172 0.6 374 4.2 396 4.2 O'Hare, IL.............................. 2,275 33.0 2,411 33.0 2,623 34.0 2,984 37.0 Oklahoma City, OK....................... 5 0.2 8 0.2 16 0.4 19 0.4 Ontario, CA............................. 65 1.0 58 1.3 77 1.8 82 1.8 Orlando, FL............................. 1,795 25.8 1,816 26.1 1,822 26.3 1,977 28.3 Philadelphia IA, PA..................... 479 7.0 634 8.0 672 8.0 740 9.0 Phoenix, AZ............................. 200 1.9 178 2.5 267 4.0 283 4.0 Pierre, SD.............................. 8 0.1 8 0.1 9 0.2 9 0.2 Pittsburgh, PA.......................... 189 3.0 200 3.0 212 3.0 225 3.0 Port Arthur, TX......................... 7 0.2 7 0.2 ........ ...... ........ ...... Port Columbus, OH....................... 17 0.3 20 0.5 21 0.5 22 0.5 Portland, OR............................ 169 3.6 264 5.6 269 4.7 285 0.5 Raleigh, NC............................. 364 6.1 382 6.1 251 4.0 266 4.0 Rickenbacker, OH........................ 6 0.1 6 0.1 6 0.1 6 0.1 Sacramento, CA.......................... 4 0.1 4 0.1 4 0.1 4 0.1 Salt Lake City, UT...................... 36 0.2 53 0.6 58 0.8 61 0.8 San Antonio, TX......................... 148 3.5 191 4.5 319 4.9 378 5.9 San Diego, CA........................... 108 0.3 173 2.3 211 3.0 224 3.0 San Francisco, CA....................... 2,268 55.4 2,423 44.2 2,998 56.2 3,177 56.2 San Jose, CA............................ 133 2.3 118 3.0 139 3.4 147 3.4 San Juan, PR............................ 4,428 93.0 4,533 95.0 4,604 95.5 4,880 95.5 San Luis, AZ............................ 13 0.3 14 0.3 15 0.3 16 0.3 Seattle, WA............................. 826 13.2 875 12.9 1,119 15.7 1,412 21.7 Spokane, WA............................. 5 0.1 12 0.1 9 ...... 9 ...... St. Peters, MO.......................... 194 4.4 197 4.4 327 5.8 337 5.8 Tampa, FL............................... 215 3.7 228 4.0 266 4.2 335 5.2 Toledo, OH.............................. 8 0.1 10 0.8 10 0.8 11 0.8 Twin Cities, MN......................... 187 3.0 485 7.0 514 7.0 545 7.0 U.S. Virgin Islands..................... 447 9.0 575 11.5 589 11.5 604 11.5 Witchita, KS............................ 2 ...... 2 ...... 10 0.2 11 0.2 Wright-Patterson, OH.................... 5 0.1 6 0.1 6 0.1 7 0.1 Total............................. $58,991 1,101 $67,116 1,211 $74,897 1,304 $81,890 1,377 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 69 of last year's hearing record showing the fee schedule for each activity and changes that have occurred since instituting the user fee. [The information follows:] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Revised fee eff. January Category Fee 1, 1993 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Airport operations: International passengers \1\..... $2.00 $1.45. Commercial Aircraft.............. 76.75 61.00 through February 29, 1996. Commercial aircraft \2\.......... ....... 53.00 effective March 1, 1996. Maritime operations: Commercial vessel \1\............ 544.00 369.50. Land border operations: Commercial truck \1\............. 2.00 No change. Loaded railroad cars \1\......... 7.00 No change. Phytosanitary certificates: Commercial \2\................... 30.00 50.00 effective March 1, 1996. Noncommercial/low value \2\...... 19.00 23.00 effective March 1, 1996. Reissued \2\..................... 5.00 7.00 effective March 1, 1996. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Fees effective May 13, 1996. \2\ Fees revised March 1, 1996. Mr. Skeen. Do you anticipate any changes in the charges during fiscal year 1997? Response. A proposed rule has been published to revise the AQI user fees for FY's 1997 to 2002. The comment period closes on March 28, 1997. Mr. Skeen. As part of your efforts to comply with the Government Performance and Results Act your agency expanded data collection at the ports to measure the frequency of quarantine material entering the port and the pest risk of these products. What did you find as a result of this effort? Response. So far we have began to establish evaluative benchmarks for future comparisons. Additional data will be collected for pathway analysis and pest identification purposes. Once we called this data we will have a better idea of program effectiveness. Mr. Skeen. APHIS and the U.S. Army have entered into an MOU to develop an automated baggage inspection system, X-Ray, which should be on-line in April 1998. What is the status of this initiative? Response. The fully functional prototype will be ready in early 1998. We will test it at the port of San Juan, Puerto Rico. Mr. Skeen. What impact has the Automated Cargo System had on the program? Response. We are installing major equipment and training inspectors at the ports of Los Angeles, Houston, Miami, and JFK. Installation has been completed at JFK, and we are attempting to utilize the Automated Cargo System--ACS--technology to speed cargo clearance. We plan to expand these efforts as quickly as possible within available resources, and as we are able to provide the necessary training in the use of the new system. It is too soon to evaluate the program impact, but we hope that it will lead to quicker cargo clearance. This wide area network system would replace the existing Harris equipment interface with Customs at 33 maritime locations and 26 airports. Mr. Skeen. Give the Committee an update of how the new Automated Targeting System for electronic transmission of cargo data and entry documents is working. Response. The Automated Targeting System is part of a Customs Service system which uses artificial intelligence techniques to rank shipments for inspection. Currently being piloted by Customs at selected ports, the system merges carrier manifest and broker entry information, filters this information through a set of established criteria, and prioritizes the shipments for inspection based on system findings. We are currently working with Customs and the contractor to develop the technical and operational specifications necessary to adapt the data entry and manifest data to meet our needs. We are also purchasing computer hardware and related electronic equipment to establish a nationwide network upon which this and other systems will run. This project will take 5 years to become fully operational. Mr. Skeen. You are proposing an increase of $2.0 million in the agricultural quarantine inspection user fees account while at the same time decreasing staff years by 42 in fiscal year 1998. Please explain the imbalance of this proposal in further detail. Response. The staff-year figures given in the Explanatory Notes reflect both those personnel involved in the direct delivery of APHIS' program services at ports-of-entry, and the line item's proportionate share of program direction and support, both at headquarters and in the field. APHIS is in the midst of a streamlining initiative which began in 1993 and by 1999 will eliminate approximately 450 administrative positions in the field and at headquarters. These reductions will show up in the staff years attributed to the various line items because the resources for support functions happen to be included there. Given that the AQI-user fees line item is by far our largest, reductions in support functions due to streamlining and reinvention may give the impression that direct program delivery is being reduced, when in fact the opposite is true. We have no plans to reduce the staff levels at the ports-of-entry in FY 1998, and in fact have budgeted for the possibility of increased hiring at a few critical locations as circumstances dictate. The number of staff years by airport actually increases from 1,304 in FY 1997 to 1,377 in FY 1998. Also the FAIR Act of 1996 exempted AQI from staff year restrictions. This would allow us to add inspectors when demand and resources so dictate. Mr. Skeen. Provide a detailed breakout of how you propose to spend $1,160,000 increase in the AQI program. [The information follows:] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Staff Salary and Location years benefits Other costs ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hawaii................................ 8 $352,000 $5,000 Blaine, Washington.................... 1 44,000 2,000 Tecate, California.................... 2 88,000 48,000 Andrade, California................... 1 44,000 53,000 Lukeville, Arizona.................... 1 44,000 53,000 Brownsville, Texas (Los Tomates)...... 4 120,000 95,000 Eagle Pass, Texas (Eagle Pass 2)...... 3 84,000 34,000 Canadian border initiatives involving smuggling of prohibited Oriental fruit and commodities................ 2 88,000 6,000 --------------------------------- Total........................... 22 864,000 296,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Skeen. What is the reason for the increase in traffic of untreated Asian and European agricultural products into the U.S. from Canada? Response. The primary reason is an increase in the ethnic populations in California and New York, which is accompanied by greater demand for food from foreign countries, most of which are prohibited. Similar products produced in the United States are usually 4 to 10 times as expensive as similar foreign fruits being smuggled, which are untreated. In addition, enforcement is very difficult. Smuggling is a crime under the U.S. Codes, but there are no administrative sanctions under the Code of Federal Regulations. The Customs Service has jurisdiction over these violations, but they usually do not place emphasis on low valued agricultural commodities. Responsibility for prosecuting smuggling cases rests with the U.S. Attorneys, whose main focus is on the largest violations, usually involving drugs and/or illegal weapons. Smuggling of prohibited agricultural products from Canada has not proven to be a difficult pathway. We are finding that many smuggled agricultural commodities are brought in through Indian reservations along the U.S.-Canadian border. This has proven difficult to control because the Indian reservations are not under the jurisdiction of either the Canadian or the U.S. Government. Mr. Skeen. You state that new border stations will be opened and staffed; two on the Mexican border and one on the Canadian border. Where will they be located? Reponse. Since publication of the Explanatory Notes, we have modified our schedule slightly. We still plan to open three new border stations in FY 1998, but all will be along the Mexican border. The locations are: Andrade, California; Los Tomates, Texas; and Eagle Pass, Texas (Eagle Pass 2 Bridge). The proposed new Canadian border station at Pembina, North Dakota, has been postponed until FY 1999 based on the General Services Administration time line for additional space for expansion. Mr. Skeen. Provide a list of the recommendations of the Border Passenger Re-engineering Initiative Team on ways to expedite passenger processing while maintaining or increasing compliance with current U.S. laws and regulations. Response. A list of the recommendations contained in a report to the National Performance Review entitled Reengineering United States Primary Passenger Processing follows: Training Teach all inspectional personnel each of the Federal Inspection Services--FIS--missions to further the goal of working together more efficiently. Expand FIS officers' foreign language capabilities in order to better communicate with the traveling public. Use alternate training formats in order to reduce the time inspectors are removed from their work sites, such as computer-based, video and teleconferencing, and train-the-trainer. Risk assessment Develop national and local passenger analysis units. Develop joint inspectional roving teams at airports. Develop pre-primary, joint roving teams on the southern U.S. border. Performance measurement Develop performance measurements for processing times, efficiency, and courtesy in dealing with the public as well as customer satisfaction. Analyze these measurements regularly, in order to set improvement targets and to respond to any performance gaps. Technology improvements Establish electronic bulletin boards accessible by all FIS at their local work sites. Install license plate readers at all land border crossing. Install video cameras to assist in land border inspections at remote ports-of-entry. Further the use of machine readable documents in order to improve effectiveness and efficiency. Employ biometric technology to accomplish our goals of improving efficiency and effectiveness. Complete development and begin installation of tomographic X-rays. Install an automated call distribution system on the northern border. Install X-rays at all high volume border ports. Establish a radio frequency common to all FIS for use by inspection personnel. Passenger segmentation Maximize the many ways passengers may be segregated at both the air and land borders to facilitate entry while at the same time increasing enforcement. Public relations Improve our customer' knowledge of FIS requirements through various means; e.g., video presentations to departing passengers as well as inbound passengers;informational kiosks in departure lounges; electronic bulletin boards at land borders; and providing information in foreign airports and in meetings with stakeholders and customers. Access to information Improve the access to Interagency Border Inspection System--IBIS-- databases for all inspectional personnel by obtaining security clearances for APHIS personnel, providing computer equipment where needed. Increase the participation by airlines in the Advance Passenger Information System and improve the quality of data in the system. Elimination of paperwork Examine the paperwork generated in the entry process, and streamline or eliminate where possible in order to increase efficiency. Mr. Skeen. When do you anticipate the results of the baseline data collection to measure the effects of this new initiative to be complete? Response. The results of this initiative are expected after one full year with all AQI ports using the system. AQI monitoring began in most ports by October 1996, therefore we anticipate that a full year's data should be ready for analysis and review by the beginning of fiscal year 1998. Mr. Skeen. How long does it take to train a dog for the beagle patrol job? Response. Beagle dogs undergo a 12-week training course with their proposed handlers. Mr. Skeen. Within AQI, APHIS maintains an ongoing preclearance program in Cuba. What is this preclearance program used for? Response. If fiscal year 1996, APHIS personnel were detailed to Cuba to train military personnel on how to conduct inspections. This training program was funded by the military. Scrapie Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 73 of last year's hearing record showing scrapie program spending to include fiscal year 1996 actuals and fiscal year 1997 estimates. [The information follows:] SCRAPIE PROGRAM SPENDING ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year-- ------------------------------------ Activity 1997 Total 1995 1996 (est.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Research........................................................ $214,000 $194,000 $194,000 $602,000 Other........................................................... 2,133,000 2,190,348 2,773,000 7,096,348 ----------------------------------------------- Total..................................................... 2,347,000 2,384,348 2,967,000 7,698,348 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Skeen. I read in the budget justifications where the occurrence of scrapie prompted Brazil to ban all importations of sheep and bovine embryos from the U.S. in fiscal year 1996. Why is this the case since the presence of scrapie existed in the U.S. prior to fiscal year 1996? Response. The Brazilian ban on U.S. sheep and bovine embryos was precautionary measure in response to the United Kingdom's--UK--Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy--BSE--outbreak and media interest in the theory that a link exists between scrapie in sheep and BSE in cattle. This theory is still unproven. Cattle Tick Mr. Skeen. Reinfestation of cattle tick in the U.S. is likely a result of the movement of wildlife, especially exotic game and white- tailed deer. A new technology involving a systemic pesticide provided through pesticide-medicated baits was being tested to solve this problem. At this time last year, your agency was preparing the documentation needed to get FDA approval for use of this technology. What is the status of this new issue? Response. Within the last year, APHIS has had discussions with the pharmaceutical company that holds the patent on the pesticide and with FDA concerning field us of this technology. Because the liability and lack of market issues, progress in the discussions with the company and FDA has been limited. Although the technology showed promise in earlier small-scale field trials, further research is needed before the technology can be considered for program use. Animal Damage Control Mr. Skeen. Your agency has cooperative agreements with all states relatedto animal damage control work. Provide a list of the amounts of cost-share provide by each state and the federal share spent for fiscal year 1996. Response. The following table contains the amount of Federal appropriated funds and cooperator contributed funds allocated by State for FY 1996. These funds are used for efforts such as resolution of wildlife conflicts at airports, the rabies control project in Texas and other human health and safety issues, as well as for the protection of endangered species and public and private property. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year-- ------------------------------- State 1996 1996 appropriated cooperative ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alabama................................. $159,000 $31,963 Alaska.................................. 45,000 680,459 Arizona................................. 448,799 265,791 Arkansas................................ 258,890 .............. California.............................. 1,414,915 2,264,991 Colorado................................ 790,480 240,854 Connecticut............................. 9,370 .............. Delaware................................ 10,580 .............. District of Columbia.................... 4,761 .............. Florida................................. 151,950 78,743 Georgia................................. 103,800 109,477 Hawaii.................................. 100,00 670,262 Idaho................................... 963,144 411,400 Illionia................................ 117,050 326,137 Indiana................................. 96,700 21,513 Iowa.................................... 68,960 4,361 Kansas.................................. 75,000 33,804 Kentucky................................ 81,600 126,212 Louisiana............................... 361,600 221,520 Maine................................... 135,700 45,320 Maryland................................ 90,459 71,885 Massachusetts........................... 75,897 36,450 Michigan................................ 97,800 28,855 Minnesota............................... 242,500 96 Mississippi............................. 567,700 849,499 Missouri................................ 103,440 54,063 Montana................................. 973,500 547,194 Nebraska................................ 393,874 332,556 Nevada.................................. 814,872 619,854 New Hampshire........................... 175,306 68,549 New Jersey.............................. 109,340 208,182 New Mexico.............................. 1,242,585 1,098,776 New York................................ 119,634 115,898 North Carolina.......................... 185,850 575,420 North Dakota............................ 772,052 331,948 Ohio.................................... 148,900 70,000 Oklahoma................................ 789,852 927,322 Oregon.................................. 975,400 724,621 Pennsylvania............................ 79,187 .............. Rhode Island............................ 8,433 .............. South Carolina.......................... 163,61 269,778 South Dakota............................ 300,000 786,136 Tennessee............................... 244,800 280,701 Texas................................... 2,290,752 5,564,171 Utah.................................... 996,992 840,175 Vermont................................. 61,594 39,710 Virginia................................ 168,400 179,034 Washington/Guam......................... 588,637 2,230,392 West Virginia........................... 89,700 120,582 Wisconsin............................... 525,500 951,596 Wyoming................................. 1,006,781 471,136 ------------------------------- Total............................. 19,773,578 23,927,384 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 71 of last year's hearing record showing the amount spent on animal damage control research, including the amount allocated to non-lethal methods development, to include fiscal year 1997. [The information follows:] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Total Fiscal year funding nonlethal Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1995.............................. $9,671,892 $7,253,919 75 1996.............................. 9,716,328 7,287,246 75 1997 (est.)....................... 10,591,000 7,248,750 \1\ 68.4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ The FY 1997 appropriation for ADC Methods Development includes a one- time increase of $926,000 to cover relocations costs of employees moving to the new Wildlife Research Center is Fort Collins, Colorado. An anticipated minimum of 75 percent of funding, excluding the one- time increase, will be devoted to nonlethal methods development. Methods Development Mr. Skeen. Provide specific examples of what research was done in methods development in fiscal year 1996. Response. National Wildlife Research Center--NWRC--researchers have made significant progress towards developing immunocontraceptive vaccines for non-lethal wildlife damage management. An Investigational New Animal Drug application was submitted to FDA and has been approved to permit field testing of zona pellucida vaccine for the control of deer and other damage causing wildlife. NWRC has continued evaluating numerous non-lethal chemical products to repel blackbirds and other bird species to reduce consumption of rice and other agricultural commodities. NWRC is also assisting with the re-registration of methiocarb, a proven bird repellent. NWRC continued multi-year research projects at O'Hare International Airport and Elmendorf Air Force Base to reduce wildlife strike hazards. Turf vegetation management and non-lethal repellent were investigated to minimize the numbers of gulls, waterfowl and hawks that are a threat to aviation safety. Methods to exclude deer from airports using repellents and physical barriers were also investigated. Non-lethal methods have been developed for controlling blackbird damage to sunflowers by reducing blackbird roosting habitat in cattail wetlands through the aerial application of an aquatic herbicide. Similarly, methods were developed for reducing cormorant depredation of catfish by dispersing cormorants away from winter roosting sites. These methods are now in use by the animal damage control operations program and by producers. Success of these control methods will be monitored through radio-telemetry and Geographic Information Systems applications. During FY 1996, interdisciplinary research efforts continued to identify materials and develop methods for non-lethal control in Integrated Pest Management programs. Promising materials include predator urines, essential plant oils, volatile sulfur containing compounds and various types of plants and physical barriers which may repel herbivorous rodents as well as deer. NWRC progressed during FY 1996 in the development of selective, effective humane traps and snares to increase efficiency and reduce animal injuries associated with capture and restraint of coyotes. Cooperative funding allowed for the initiation of work on contraceptive methods to reduce coyote predation on lambs associated with provisioning pups at dens. Experiments with tastes, odor, and visual cues have been initiated to improve coyote attraction to baits and delivery devices for chemical agents, and to identify potential chemical repellents. During FY 1996, NWRC developed and validated analytical chemistry methodology, conducted field studies, and supervised contract studies, to provide 21 data submissions for the registration and re-registration of chemicals, including Compound 1080 for use in livestock protection collars to mitigate livestock predation; strychnine, zinc phosphide, and carbon and sodium nitrate gas cartridges to reduce agricultural damage caused by numerous small mammals; and alpha chloralose and methyl anthranilate to reduce bird related agricultural losses and public health and aviation hazards. Also during FY 1996, rotenone, pyrethrins, and propoxur were evaluated by interdisciplinary research teams for use as oral and dermal toxicants, as part of continuing efforts to develop methods to control brown tree snake--BTS--populations on Guam. Preliminary results indicate that propoxur and pyrethrin are effective oral toxicants and rotenone is an effective dermal toxicant. Methods to quantify the residues of these toxicants in BTS are being developed and will be used to assess the environmental safety associated with the use of these chemicals to control BTS populations. In Hawaii, improved methods for using rodenticide baits were developed for controlling damage in macadamia nut orchards caused by introduced rats that have maintained high populations in orchards and a variety of other habitats. Studies of rat movements using radio- telemetry and fluorescent dyes established that placement of bait in trees resulted in increased bait acceptance and specifically targeted the animals feeding on the growing macadamia nuts. Mr. Skeen. Provide a table that shows the amount of funding that is provided to the Jack Berryman Institute for Wildlife Damage Management for fiscal years 1993 through 1997. Response. Since its inception in FY 1993, APHIS has provided by $35,000 per year for the Jack Berryman Institute. In addition, APHIS provides funds for an academic development program at Utah State University. The following table contains information on both the Jack Berryman Institute and the development program at Utah State University: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jack Fiscal year Berryman Utah State Total Institute University ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1993............................. $35,000 $229,000 $264,000 1994............................. 35,000 229,000 264,000 1995............................. 35,000 229,000 264,000 1996............................. 35,000 212,000 247,000 1997............................. 35,000 212,000 247,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Skeen. The project to reintroduce the wolf into Yellowstone Park is now in its third year of operation. Given us a status report on the project. What have you learned? What has been the impact on your operations and budget? Response. Gray wolves began naturally moving back into northwestern Montana from Canada in the mid-1980's. This naturally occurring population of wolves is increasing and now occupies northern Idaho as well as northwestern Montana, and consists of about 70 adults and yearlings and possibly 30 pups. To speed wolf recovery in the region, the FWS captured 29 wolves in Canada in 1995 and 37 wolves in 1996. They released them into YNP and central Idaho. This group of wolves is considered a nonessential experimental population and it is increasing as well. Introduced wolves have successfully bred and have raised pups. More pups will be produced this spring. As evidenced by the increase in their numbers, both naturally occurring and reintroduced gray wolves can thrive in many areas of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. They sometimes frequent areas of human activity and some seem to select the same type of habitat that some people prefer, such as areas of interspersed forest and open areas typical of ranching communities in western Montana. Most of the wolves have not come into direct conflict with people, but some have killed livestock. An increase in these conflicts is expected as the wolf population increases. Mr. Skeen. How much funding do you receive from the Fish and Wildlife Service for monitor and control work? Does this amount cover the full cost of your work? If not, what is the shortfall? Response. The April 1991 agreement provided approximately $60,000 per year of FWS funds to support a wolf management specialist in Montana. This funding provided to be insufficient in FY 1996. In FY 1997, FWS and APHIS each agreed to contribute $100,000 to efforts in dealing with wolf predation on livestock. The new interagency agreement between FWS and APHIS commits a total of $200,000 per year toward efforts in dealing with wolf predation on livestock. APHIS currently estimates these efforts to cost approximately $215,000 in FY 1997. In addition to a projected shortfall of approximately $15,000 in FY 1997 for wolf management efforts, APHIS is projecting average shortfalls of approximately $58,000 per year for each of the next 2 years, beyond the $200,000 per year currently committed in the APHIS/ FWS interagency agreement for work in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. With expected reintroductions of the Mexican wolf in the near future, APHIS will also need to expand efforts to include the States of Arizona and New Mexico by FY 1999. Mr. Skeen. As a result of your research, the FDA has authorized investigations of the tranquilizer propiopromazine in tab form which can be attached to traps and foot snares. What is the status of this investigation? Response. The Food and Drug Administration granted an Investigational New Animal drug permit to APHIS in June 1995, to use propiopromazine hydrochloride in Tranquilizer Trap Devices--TTD-- attached to traps and snares set to capture coyotes and wolves. The tranquilizer will immobilize the captured animals for up to 24 hours, thereby helping reduce stress and trap-related injuries. APHIS is developing use guidelines and training manuals for the TTD. As soon as these are in place, the agency will train and certify individuals for their use. animal damage control Mr. Skeen. Describe in further detail your ongoing Living with Wildlife campaign. Response. In 1993, APHIS launched a National ``Living With Wildlife'' campaign. APHIS began this outreach program to better inform the general public and future generations about wildlife, wildlife damage, and the goals, mission, and objectives of the animal damage control program. The primary message is that wildlife is a national treasure to cherish and preserve and, like our other resources, wildlife must often be managed to ensure abundance, conservation, and diversity. Wildlife, however, can sometimes cause a great deal of damage in rural and urban settings. Over the past 4 years we distributed more than 50,000 Living With Wildlife public affairs products throughout the country. From October 1, 1995 to September 3, 1996, more than 100 positive news items were reported in national and regional publications, including Newsweek and USA Today. These articles included information about backyard wildlife problems, the Texas and New England rabies programs, the BTS on Guam, guarding dogs, aquaculture, urban wildlife problems, and new research techniques. In addition, several cable access channels continue to broadcast the Living-With-Wildlife video and it is regularly presented to civic organizations and schools. APHIS also provides the video to cooperative extension wildlife biologists and State wildlife agencies throughout the country. Upcoming efforts will focus on research activities, bear relocation, protection of endangered species, and the protection of human health and safety. APHIS also provides specific information regarding ADC's ``Living With Wildlife'' campaign through the Internet. During 1996, ADC received between 25 to 30 requests per week through the Internet for further information. Mr. Skeen. What were the results of a NASS survey to determine the range and extent of wildlife damage to agricultural resources in the U.S.? Response. NASS surveyed 16,000 agricultural producers in January 1995. Of approximately 11,000 respondents nationwide, 58 percent reported losses in commodities due to wildlife. This represents an increase of about 3 percent since 1989. Based on the median value of all producers' estimates of their losses, wildlife damage cost producers approximately $591 million in 1994, $130 million more than in 1989. Average wildlife-caused losses represent 1 percent of the value of agriculture production, with loss rates varying widely among producers and commodities. The following percentages and estimated loss amounts are for FY 1994, based on total respondents to the NASS survey: Twenty-one percent of livestock/poultry producers reported losses totaling $140 million. Fifty-one percent of field crop producers reported losses totaling $316 million. Seventy-one percent of catfish or trout producers reported losses totaling $24 million. Thirty-nine percent of producers of ``other commodities'' such as nursery products or honey, reported losses totaling $18 million. Twenty-three percent of producers who had stored commodities reported losses totaling $26 million. Mr. Skeen. Please tell the Committee why you propose to reduce the number of sheep, goats, and cattle protected through the ADC program in fiscal years 1997 and 1998. Response. Beginning in FY 1995, we changed the method of determining the workload indicators to more accurately indicate performance measurements and outcomes. The use of new methodologies and a greater amount of data available through our national computerized reporting system allows for improved and refined accuracy in projections each year. The reduced projections for FY 1998 also reflect anticipated results of the proposed $3.25 million decrease in funding for the ADC Operations line item if States decide not to increase their cost-sharing. Skeen. Under the ADC program you state there is currently a significant disparity in the level of support that is being provided by individual states, ranging from 0 percent to 94 percent of total program costs. Please provide a list, by state, of the amount spent for ADC activities including a breakout of Federal and state contributions, for fiscal years 1995 and 1996. Response. The following table contains the amount of Federal appropriated funds and cooperator contributed funds allocated by State for FY 1995 and FY 1996. These funds are used for efforts such as resolution of wildlife conflicts at airports, the rabies control project in Texas and other human health and safety issues, as well as for the protection of endangered species and public and private property. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1995 State --------------------------------------------------------------- Appropriation Cooperator Appropriation Cooperator ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama......................................... $159,900 $31,963 $163,000 $57,465 Alaska.......................................... 45,000 680,459 50,000 217,986 Arizona......................................... 448,799 265,791 434,384 267,774 Arkansas........................................ 258,890 259,690 .............. California...................................... 1,414,915 2,264,991 1,526,097 2,290,753 Colorado........................................ 790,480 240,854 765,524 167,633 Connecticut..................................... 9,370 .............. 14,992 .............. Delaware........................................ 10,580 .............. 10,580 .............. District of Columbia............................ 4,761 .............. 10,580 .............. Florida......................................... 151,950 78,743 155,200 44,150 Georgia......................................... 103,800 109,477 103,800 103,398 Hawaii.......................................... 100,000 670,262 95,000 600,732 Idaho........................................... 936,144 411,400 905,819 406,106 Illinois........................................ 117,050 326,137 117,050 320,447 Indiana......................................... 96,700 21,513 104,387 10,363 Iowa............................................ 68,960 4,361 54,235 2,197 Kansas.......................................... 75,000 33,804 75,000 1,126 Kentucky........................................ 81,600 126,212 118,663 199,752 Louisiana....................................... 361,600 221,520 362,400 137,820 Maine........................................... 135,700 45,320 135,700 96,980 Maryland........................................ 90,459 71,885 84,640 40,446 Massachusetts................................... 75,897 36,450 73,086 16,000 Michigan........................................ 97,800 28,855 105,487 8,876 Minnesota....................................... 242,500 96 246,500 30 Mississippi..................................... 567,700 849,499 527,800 654,052 Missouri........................................ 103,440 54,063 133,539 41,103 Montana......................................... 973,500 547,194 987,759 538,474 Nebraska........................................ 393,874 332,556 372,174 245,502 Nevada.......................................... 814,872 619,852 791,172 586,071 New Hampshire................................... 175,306 68,549 186,900 62,135 New Jersey...................................... 109,340 208,182 105,784 428,990 New Mexico...................................... 1,242,585 1,098,776 1,175,550 1,218,389 New York........................................ 119,634 115,898 119,634 28,823 North Carolina.................................. 185,850 575,420 135,850 305,579 North Dakota.................................... 772,052 331,948 748,721 387,746 Ohio............................................ 148,900 70,000 148,900 47,037 Oklahoma........................................ 789,852 927,322 766,152 800,186 Oregon.......................................... 974,440 724,621 943,788 737,608 Pennsylvania.................................... 79,178 .............. 83,116 .............. Rhode Island.................................... 8,433 .............. 5,622 .............. South Carolina.................................. 163,611 269,778 113,611 245,648 South Dakota.................................... 300,000 789,136 300,000 830,839 Tennessee....................................... 244,800 280,701 223,111 336,162 Texas........................................... 2,290,752 5,564,171 2,287,820 5,205,424 Utah............................................ 996,992 840,175 962,067 764,823 Vermont......................................... 61,594 39,710 50,000 30,566 Virginia........................................ 168,400 179,034 222,210 124,386 Washington/Guam................................. 588,637 2,230,392 566,183 2,064,108 West Virginia................................... 89,700 120,582 97,387 93,156 Wisconsin....................................... 525,500 951,596 525,500 904,144 Wyoming......................................... 1,006,781 471,136 971,317 427,924 --------------------------------------------------------------- Total......................................... 19,773,578 23,927,384 19,523,481 22,098,909 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Skeen. During fiscal year 1996, 17 ADC specialists were working full-time on projects in California to protect threatened and endangered species. What was the cost of providing these 17 full-time specialists? What did California contribute to this initiative? What rational is used for this expenditure? Response. We spent an estimated $528,843 in appropriated, cooperative and reimbursable funds to protect threatened and endangered species in FY 1996. Approximately $171,779 came from State, County, City, and organizational sources in California. These entities were required by the Endangered Species Act to mitigate the impact of their actions by protecting the listed species from predation by other wildlife. Federal funds were expended toward the protection of Federally protect species. Mr. Skeen. Provide a table that shows, by State, the amount that is spent on protection of threatened and endangered species activities. Response. The following table contains estimated total animal damage control operations expenditures by State, for protection of threatened and endangered species in FY 1996. This includes a combination of Federal reimbursable, and cooperative funding. FY 1996 Federal/Reimbursable/Cooperative Expenditures State: Alabama............................................. $2,986 Alaska.............................................. 37,253 Arizona............................................. 1,246 Arkansas............................................................ California.......................................... 528,843 Colorado............................................................ Connecticut......................................................... Delaware............................................................ District of Columbia................................................ Florida............................................. 4,185 Georgia............................................................. Hawaii.............................................. 155,281 Idaho............................................... 16,994 Illinois............................................ 175 Indiana............................................. 420 Iowa................................................................ Kansas.............................................................. Kentucky............................................................ Louisiana........................................... 16,163 Maine............................................... 550 Maryland............................................................ Massachusetts....................................... 20,422 Michigan............................................................ Minnesota........................................... 190,500 Mississippi......................................... 2,888 Missouri............................................................ Montana............................................. 135,365 Nebraska............................................ 3,074 Nevada.............................................................. New Hampshire....................................... 1,000 New Jersey.......................................... 2,508 New Mexico.......................................... 1,500 New York............................................ 286 North Carolina...................................................... North Dakota........................................ 670 Ohio................................................................ Oklahoma............................................................ Oregon.............................................................. Pennsylvania........................................................ Rhode Island........................................ 84 South Carolina...................................................... South Dakota........................................ 2,183 Tennessee........................................................... Texas............................................... 12,225 Utah................................................ 3,858 Vermont............................................................. Virginia............................................ 76 Washington/Guam..................................... 130,362 West Virginia....................................................... Wisconsin........................................... 4,030 Wyoming............................................. 11,664 Virgin Islands...................................... 3,597 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................. 1,290,388 Mr. Skeen. I read where, due to the numerous sheep losses to coyotes, ranchers in Oregon want to use livestock protection collars filled with the banned 1080 poison. Describe the problem in Oregon and tell the Committee how you are handling the concerns of the ranchers. Response. Compound 1080 was registered by the EPA in 1985 for use in the Livestock Protection Collar--LPC. The Livestock Protection Collar is a highly selective control method that can be used to protect sheep from predation when other methods have proven to be ineffective or inappropriate. In January 1997, the EPA approved the use of the LPC in Oregon in response to a request from the Oregon livestock industry which is suffering heavy sheep and lamb losses. However, the Oregon Department of Agriculture--ODA--must also give its approval before the LPC can be used in that State. The ODA has recommended that the collar be tested in a rural sheep producing area of the State before approval can be granted. The ODA has also requested economic examples from APHIS concerning the benefits of using the LPC. Although there is currently no data detailing the monetary benefits of using the LPC, APHIS is currently gathering data on its effectiveness in reducing livestock predation. A final step required in the ODA approval evaluation process is a public meeting to consider information and to solicit public comment. APHIS hopes to meet with the ODA within a few weeks, to discuss the data prior to the public meeting. karnal bunt Mr. Skeen. Describe in further detail your Karnal Bunt Emergency Project. Response. Our Karnal Bunt--KB--Emergency Project consists of survey regulatory, identification, and investigation activities, as well as control and compensation. As a regulatory Agency, we consider eradication a reasonable first objective in dealing with a new quarantine pest such as KB. This position has been supported by various industry groups, State departments of agriculture, and officials involved in international trade. The main goals of our program are to (1) protect U.S. export markets, (2) protect U.S. wheat producers in KB-free areas, (3) provide the best possible options for producers in regulated areas, and (4) maintain the best possible information on where KB is located. The management strategy we are currently using against the pathogen that causes KB concentrates on minimizing the probability that it will expand beyond areas where it currently exists and detecting an identifying it in other areas to which it might have inadvertently been moved. We expect that this strategy will be sufficient to allow wheat exports to continue moving. So far, we have been able to prevent the presence of KB in the United States from crippling the $5.9 billion wheat export market. Preserving this market is highly dependent on our successful continuation of the regulatory program and ongoing national survey to document that major wheat- producing areas of the U.S. are free of KB. In October 1996, we published a final rule that established criteria for risk levels for areas with regard to KB and for the movement of regulated articles based on those risk levels. This rule also established criteria for the planting of seed from KB-host crops. These actions were warranted because they relieve unnecessary restrictions on areas regulated because of KB, while guarding against the artificial spread of the disease. Because of the difficulty of differentiating between spores of KB and spores of ryegrass, we will not take regulatory action will or unless proof exists that KB is present. We consider the finding of bunted kernels or positive pathogenicity tests as evidence that KB exists. Once we determine that KB is in a particular area, we would propose adding that area to the current Federal quarantine area. On March 17, 1997, we announced that we were no longer considering taking further regulatory action in the Southeast. We made this decision because no bunted kernels had been found in any samples in that region. We will soon publish a standard for determining the presence of KB that will apply to all parts of the country. Establishing this standard will ensure that all U.S. wheat producers and handlers are treated equitably regarding KB and that U.S. wheat has necessary certification to remain competitive in global markets. These actions were consistent with USDA's objective to protect the U.S. wheat industry while limiting restrictions to areas where KB disease occurs. The National Surveys enable us to provide assurance to all trade partners that KB is not present in major wheat-producing areas of the United States. Even if we do not detect any additional evidence of KB, the negative surveys would enable us to certify that wheat we are exporting has originated from areas where KB is not present. Therefore, we would be able to maintain our market share, as well as the confidence of our trade partners. We plan to expand these surveys to all 42 wheat-producing States in FY 1998. The KB program for the 1996-97 crop season will encompass portions of the Southwestern United States. The 1997 survey will identify any new areas where additional survey and control activities may be warranted. APHIS and the affected States will continue to take regulatory actions to conduct the full range of containment and control measures that have the least impact on production and do not restrict export trade. Also, we are cooperating with ARS in developing methods to detect, identify, prevent the spread of, and inactivate T. indica, which is the causal agent of KB. These activities include the detection and identification of T. indica in the laboratory and field through biochemical, statistical, and procedural methods; and physical or chemical decontamination of soil, seed, grain, equipment, and facilities. In FY 1998, we will engage in technology transfer to allow the wheat seed industry to fully adopt improved practices which insure that the U.S. wheat crop remains KB-free. We will implement practices to enable the grain and feed industry and State cooperators to participate in ongoing surveys of wheat production areas to show disease-free status. Also, we plan to develop, upgrade, and expand laboratory capabilities for detection and analysis. These activities are connected to implementation of basic research principles from ARS or other research institutions to control KB on a large scale. Specifically, the Agency would develop methods of killing KB spores in wheat field soil and in high volumes of wheat used as seed, grain, or feed. Also APHIS would develop an efficient and effective method of sampling grain in wheat fields for the presence of KB and develop efficient and effective methods of decontaminating equipment and facilities from KB. In addition, APHIS plans to develop a means to safely test and plant wheat seed, and a faster, less expensive means to process wheat samples for identification of KB. Mr. Skeen. You are proposing to spend $47 million of CCC funds for Karnal Bunt activities this fiscal year. Should Karnal bunt be classified as a minor crop disease? Response. KB is a minor crop disease, but could easily become a major threat to export markets. Our top priority in this program is to protect U.S. export markets. Currently, though, exports are not significantly affected because the disease has not reached the major wheat-producing areas of the United States. For example, only 3 percent of U.S. wheat is located in Arizona. We are still able to certify most wheat for export by demonstrating that wheat is not coming from areas where KB is known to be present. Also, we can certify that over 90 percent of U.S. wheat originates in areas where KB is not known to be present and we have seen a relatively normal movement of wheat exports since the beginning of our program. Mr. Skeen. You state in the budget justifications that APHIS plans to transfer elements of the National Karnal Bunt Survey to the private sector. What elements would be transferred and is the private sector willing to accept such a transfer? Response. At least some of the sample collection element could be transferred. We can also effectively transfer parts of the sample analysis element to the private sector. We will be working with the private sector during the remainder of FY 1997 to determine how parts of the data analysis and data management elements of the National Survey can be transferred as well. As long as our trade partners regard KB as a phytosanitary issue, the private grain sector should be willing to take measures to prove that U.S. wheat does not present a significant risk of spreading KB. However, private sector acceptance of this transfer will depend on a mutually acceptable cost-share arrangement, whether our laboratories can be converted to work with the private sector, and our ability to ensure that the process that would be used by the private sector would yield an official sample to meet World Trade Organization requirements.With the increase proposed for the pest detection line item, we plan to propose a suitable cost-share arrangement to begin to address these concerns. national animal health monitoring system Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 81 of last year's hearing record, showing the annual cost and the FTEs assigned for each year to the National Animal Health Monitoring System Program, to include fiscal year 1996 actuals and fiscal year 1997 estimates. [The information follows:] Cost of the NAHMS Program [Dollars in thousands] Cost (FTE's) Fiscal year: 1992................................................ $4,794(53) 1993................................................ 4,844(53) 1994................................................ 4,844(53) 1995................................................ 4,844(53) 1996................................................ 4,369(51) 1997 (est.)......................................... 4,643(47) Mr. Skeen. You anticipated Montana and Louisiana to become active in NAHMS participants in fiscal year 1997. Did this in fact happen? Response. Yes. Montana is now participating in the NAHMS Beef `97 study and Louisiana is participating in NAHMS' catfish study. Mr. Skeen. How many states are currently participating in the NAHMS Program? Do you anticipate any new states signing up during fiscal year 1997 or fiscal year 1998? Response. Twenty-three States are currently participating in NAHMS' Beef `97 study, 4 states are active in the catfish study, and 25 states are currently identified for the equine study in 1998, with 4 additional states expressing interest; Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska and New Jersey. Mr. Skeen. What were the critical information needs identified by animal health officials, producer groups, and private veterinary groups that were targeted in NAHMS? Response. The National Animal Health Monitoring System--NAHMS--Beef `97 study targeted the following: 1) disease management information such as vaccination, animal activity, and biosecurity measures, 2) animal health and management information that supports improving end product quality, 3) biosecurity and routine health management data to help achieve effective emergency disease preparedness, 4) Johnes disease and bovine leukosis data for trading partners, 5) animal health historical data to detect emerging new diseases or changing patterns of disease, and 6) new and old disease management technologies to improve production efficiency. Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the first ever NAHMS horse study planned for fiscal year 1998? Response. APHIS has completed the needs assessment process and is analyzing this data to determine the focus of the Equine `98 study. Field testing and training for the national study is scheduled for fall 1997. Data collection will begin in early 1998 and will continue for approximately 12 months. Twenty-five States representing 75 percent of the Ag Census U.S. horse population are currently targeted to participate in the study. Four additional States have expressed interest: Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska and New Jersey. buildings and facilities Mr. Skeen. Update the tables that appear on pages 78 and 79 of last year's hearing record showing the buildings and facilities funds that have been appropriated, the amount of carryover, and what the funds will be used for to include fiscal year 1996 actualities and fiscal years 1997 and 1998 estimates. [The information follows:] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ($000) Fiscal year/project ------------------------ Appropriated Carryover ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1986: For buildings and facilities, repairs and alterations............................... $2,335 For the completion of a sterile tri-fly rearing facility in Hawaii................ 1,901 -------------- Total.................................... 4,236 $6,572 ======================== 1987: For repair and improvement of existing facilities, and for construction of small buildings such as greenhouses............. 2,246 821 ======================== 1988: For repair and improvement of existing facilities, and for construction of small buildings such as greenhouses............. 2,246 76 ======================== 1989: To repair and improve the facilities at the Denver Wildlife Research Center........... 2,546 337 ======================== 1990: For repair and improvements of existing facilities and for construction of small buildings, such as greenhouses............ 4,422 Master plan to rebuild and modernize the Germplasm Quarantine Laboratory........... 3,000 Increase for the Denver Wildlife Research Laboratory................................ 6,000 -------------- Total.................................... 13,422 9,408 ======================== 1991: Routine maintenance of buildings and facilities................................ 4,396 The first phase of the National Germplasm Quarantine Center......................... 12,000 For the APHIS share of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center consolidation....... 5,000 -------------- Total.................................... 21,396 23,393 ======================== 1992: For buildings and facilities, repairs and alterations............................... 3,396 Construction of Phase II of the Plant Germplasm Quarantine Center............... 12,000 Increase for Denver Wildlife Research Center.................................... 2,500 Modernization and construction of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center.............. 3,500 -------------- Total.................................... 21,396 \1\ 40,21 7 ======================== 1993: For basic buildings and facilities, repairs and alterations........................... 5,400 For design of Phase III of the Plant Germplasm Quarantine Center............... 1,000 Modernization and construction of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center.............. 3,500 Master plan for a screwworm rearing facility in Panama........................ 500 -------------- Total.................................... 10,400 \2\ 38,57 2 ======================== 1994: For basic buildings and facilities, repairs and alterations, and preventative maintenance............................... 6,973 Complete Phase IB of the Denver Wildlife Research facility......................... 2,000 Replace the Animal Predator facility....... 500 Expand the Plant Methods Development Rearing facility.......................... 672 -------------- Total.................................... 10,145 \2\ 40,80 0 ======================== 1995: For basic buildings and facilities, repairs and alterations and preventative maintenance............................... 4,973 \2\ 33,49 3 ======================== 1996: For basic buildings and facilities, repairs and alterations, and preventative maintenance............................... 9,044 \3\ 29,56 1 ======================== 1997 (est.): For the APHIS share of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center modernization....... 3,200 5,761 ======================== 1998 (est.): For basic buildings and facilities, repairs and alterations, and preventative maintenance............................... 4,000 For the APHIS share of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center modernization....... 3,200 -------------- Total.................................... 7,200 4,961 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ $24 million of this amount is for the National Plant Germplasm Quarantine Center. \2\ $25 million of this amount is for the National Plant Germplasm Quarantine Center. \3\ $22 million of this amount is for the National Plant Germplasm Quarantine Center. Mr. Skeen. What is the status of construction of the new National Wildlife Research Center in Fort Collins, Colorado? Response. The General Services Administration--GSA--agreed to partner the construction of the office/laboratory/headquarters building. GSA is currently soliciting bids from private companies who will finance and construct the building at the CSU foothills site and lease it to APHIS at an estimated annual cost of $2.3 million, including maintenance costs. Construction is expected to begin in the third quarter of FY 1997. During FY 1997, approximately $1,082,463 will be obligated for theconstruction of Simulated Natural Environments and a tunnel washer within the Animal Research Building--ARB, and to complete the design of the office/laboratory/headquarters building. To make full use of the new Center, and to complete the Master Plan as approved in 1989, the remainder of the outdoor animal research facilities and supporting structures need to be constructed. Those structures remaining to be constructed with future funding, and for which design work has been completed, include: the ARB support wing, the outdoor animal holding and testing pens, the garage/maintenance/ shop building, the equipment compound, the bulk chemical storage building, and the storage/warehouse building. The estimated remaining construction cost for these structures is $16.1 million in 1995 dollars. Additionally, a one-time investment of $946,000 for equipment and technology will be required. This will allow the Center to maintain its research capabilities in terms of modern technologies such as analytical instrumentation, computing infrastructure, information transfer capabilities, etc. Mr. Skeen. Provide an updated breakout of the funding needed to complete each remaining component of the entire project. Response. The following is a description of remaining construction/ funding needs totaling approximately $16.1 million: Site preparation and construction of outdoor animal holding and testing pens, equipment compound, and garage/maintenance shop: $8.8 million. Animal research support building, storage warehouse, bulk chemical storage building, landscaping and irrigation: $5.6 million. Fixed equipment for the main laboratory/headquarters building: $1.7 million. national plant germplasm quarantine center Mr. Skeen. The design for both phase I and II of the National Germplasm Quarantine Center in Beltsville, Maryland was scheduled for completion in February 1997. What is the status of both? Response. Initial design has been completed for Phases I and II of the National Plant Germplasm Quarantine Center in Beltsville, Maryland. plum island modernization plan Mr. Skeen. Provide a complete long-term modernization plan for work at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center in New York. Response. The Plum Island Animal Disease Center is an Agricultural Research Service facility. In 1983, a memorandum of understanding-- MOU--transferred the diagnostic laboratory functions to APHIS. APHIS and ARS signed a Memorandum of Agreement in 1989 that established facilities improvement management plan and operational responsibilities. This same agreement provided for funding of a facilities deficiency study, provided for an annual meeting on or about March 1, and established APHIS' share based upon a program support ratio. In 1994 a new MOU was signed and replaced the 1983 MOU. This new MOU provided a new method of distributed mutual support costs based on an allocated space ratio. The ratio was 61 percent ARS and 39 percent APHIS. Since then, the two agencies have requested funding for modernization at $8.2 million per year--$3.2 million for APHIS and $5 million for ARS. Approximately $24 million has been appropriated for the Plum Island modernization project since 1993. The following table reflects projects through FY 1998 for APHIS' share of the modernization plan: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cost Fiscal year/project ($000) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1997: (1.) Electrical/telephone distribution system: Construct new underground electrical distribution system and prepare telecommunication trench system................. $2,800 (2.) Upgrade pathological incinerators: Design air emission control systems for the pathological incinerators to meet the Clean Air regulations.......... 400 ---------- Total.................................................. 3,200 ========== 1998: (1.) Upgrade pathological incinerators: First construction phase to install air emission control systems to the West Animal Wing incinerator............. 1,900 (2.) Environmental remediation: Perform closure plans; remedial actions of facilities and incinerators found to have an environmental release........................... 1,300 ---------- Total.................................................. 3,200 ========== 1999: (1.) Upgrade pathological incinerators: Complete installation of air emission control systems for the East and Orient Animal Wing incinerators................ 1,800 (2.) Plum Island Harbor repairs: Construct replacement of wood bulkheads, pilings, and dolphins. Repair pavement and drainage............................................ 1,400 ---------- Total.................................................. 3,200 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ imported fire ant Mr. Skeen. APHIS has a cooperative agreement with the University of Arkansas at Monticello to conduct research on imported fire ants. The three areas funded by this agreement are a self-supporting community abatement program, an economic impact assessment, and an ARS biological control project. What is the total amount of the cooperative agreement and how much is spent in each area? Response. The total amount of this agreement is $200,000; $76,000 on the self-supporting community abatement program; $100,000 for the economicimpact assessment; and $24,000 for the ARS biological control project. Mr. Skeen. Provide a breakout, by state, of where the $1.0 million provided for the imported fire ant program in fiscal year 1997 is being spent. How much does each state contribute to the program? [The information follows:] IMPORTED FIRE ANT SPENDING ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year 1997 ----------------------------------- State Estimated APHIS Estimated State obligations contributions ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alabama............................. $67,913 $65,273 Arizona............................. 14,009 257,545 Arkansas............................ 322,616 16,000 Florida............................. 174,028 199,743 Georgia............................. 67,913 19,235 Lousisiana.......................... 58,015 83,586 Mississippi......................... 25,467 84,650 Nevada.............................. 9,106 2,615 New Mexico.......................... 14,709 2,103 North Carolina...................... 25,467 150,000 Oklahoma............................ 17,004 15,000 South Carolina...................... 38,201 25,000 Tennessee........................... 25,467 80,000 Texas............................... 140,085 178,960 Virginia............................ ................ 25,000 ----------------------------------- Total............................. $1,000,000 $1,179,710 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Skeen. If no effective, efficient, and environmentally acceptable control agents are available for imported fire ant control for large scale application on agricultural land, how is the funding provided in fiscal year 1997 being used? Response. The funding provided in FY 1997 is being used primarily to enforce the quarantine, which prevents further spread of the IFA. Also, $200,000 is being provided to the University of Arkansas at Monticello to conduct research; $25,000 of this amount supports ARS research. Mr. Skeen. When do expect the testing to be complete on the three different biological control organisms for potential impact on imported fire ants to be complete? Response. In FY 1996, ARS developed a 5-year plan for studying and introducing these three organisms into the U.S. from South America. These organisms represent a microsporidium disease (Thelohania), a species complex of phorid flies (Phoridae), and a social parasitic ant (laubachena dagarri). Several colonies of these agents are currently being studied at the ARS quarantine facility in Gainesville, Florida. We do not expect these studies to be completed until 2001. brown tree snake Mr. Skeen. Department of Defense allocated $1.0 million to APHIS in fiscal year 1996 for a brown tree snake control program. Did you receive any funding for this program in fiscal year 1997? Response. Yes, the Department of Defense provided $1 million to continue the BTS control program in FY 1997. Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the negotiations with the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas to establish an operational brown tree snake program on Saipan? Response. APHIS submitted a $200,000 proposal for an operational control program to the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. The proposal was rejected by Commonwealth representatives. However, through a $40,000 interagency agreement with the FWS, APHIS is providing technical assistance, training, and equipment in the control of the BTS to residents of Saipan. pest and disease exclusion Mr. Skeen. At this time last year, you anticipated a final rule by the end of fiscal year 1996 in support of an effort to develop regionalization and risk assessment elements into pest and disease exclusion programs as well as standardized procedures for foreign clearance programs. Was this goal achieved? Response. In April 1996, APHIS published a proposed rule establishing new criteria for allowing or excluding importations of animals and animal products based on regionalization of animal diseases and scientific risk assessments. APHIS is reviewing comments received on this proposed rule. Mr. Skeen. Your agency drafted a legislative proposal to give the Secretary the authority to monitor and regulate international trade and interstate movements of aquatic animals, plants, and products. What is the status of this proposal? Has it been submitted to Congress for approval? Response. The proposal is undergoing administrative review at the Department. The aquaculture legislative proposal has not been submitted to Congress for approval. biotechnology permits Mr. Skeen. Electronic submissions of biotech notifications was only at about nine percent last year. Has this percentage increased over the past year or did it remain about the same? Response. Electronic submissions of biotech notifications remains at the same percentage levels last year. We do not anticipate any increases for the current year. Mr. Skeen. Do you anticipate developing procedures for electronic submissions of biotech permits as well? Response. Although electronic submissions of biotech notifications are available, most applicants prefer traditional hard-copy submissions because most submissions are unique. Furthermore, new regulations are in final review to make most plants eligible for notifications and reduce the need for biotechnology permits by 80 to 90 percent. The new regulation should be in effect by April 1997. Given these two factors, we do not anticipate developing electronic submissions for biotechnology permits. We will, however, continue to monitor the number of notifications and permit submissions and the utilization of electronic submissions. If the pattern of usage changes substantially, we will reevaluate the need for electronic permit submission. emergency funding Mr. Skeen. Describe for us what has happened during the past year in terms of serious outbreaks of pests and diseases. What kind of pest? From where did they come? How have you managed them? What resources did you expend on each? [The information follows:] Asian gypsy moth/European gypsy moth In FY 1996, we spent, in contingency funds, approximately $700,000 to control European Gypsy Moth--EGM--and $1.4 million for several Asian Gypsy Moth--AGM--projects. The EGM project involved pre-treatment delimiting, pesticide application, and post-treatment delimiting activities on approximately 600,000 acres in 15 States, which participated on a 50/50 cost share basis. APHIS continued cooperative agreements with 6 of these States (Minnesota, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin) that have experience in managing EGM control activities. They contracted for pesticide and aerial application treatments to control localized infestations. In the other nine States (Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and West Virginia), APHIS conducted and supervised most of the control work. APHIS conducted or cooperated in gypsy moth treatment control activities that involved pesticide applications of Bacillus thruringiensis--Bt--and mass trapping activities. In addition to actual pesticide applications, pretreatment delimiting surveys were carried out at multiple sites at a density of 25 traps per square mile to define the extent and location of isolated gypsy moth populations for subsequent treatments. Most of these infestations occurred as a result of the movement of infested outdoor household articles and nursery stock. FY 1996 delimiting surveys in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina led to positive results for multiple moths. The AGM projects include activities at three treatment sites in Washington State, DNA identification at APHIS' Plant Protection Center in Otis, Massachusetts, nationwide port surveys, and continuation of control and eradication activities in North Carolina and South Carolina. To address a FY 1995 AGM introduction in Washington State, the program conducted surveys, trapping, genetic testing, and aerial Bt treatments at three sites over a range of 7,500 acres. A large-scale post-treatment survey conducted in and around high-risk ports and waterways yielded and no catches. Activities conducted at the Otis facility consisted primarily of molecular screening of submitted specimens. Also, we entered into cooperative agreements with Cornell University and the University of Massachusetts. In North Carolina, each of the three catch sites (1 square mile in size) served as the center of a 640-acre treatment block. They were each treated twice with aerial Bt applications and a total of 1,490 acres were sprayed twice. Approximately 19,000 traps were set over 900 square miles at a density rate of 25 traps per square mile. Close to 100 moths were caught in this survey and sent to the Otis facility for DNA analysis, none which tested positive for the Asian genotype. On November 1, 1996, APHIS and Forest Service Officials declared eradication of AGM in North Carolina. To verify eradication in FY 1997, the Agency will conduct a significantly reduced level of trapping (about \3/4\ less than in FY 1996) of the area that was sprayed in FY 1996. In addition, port surveys will be conducted to prevent future introductions. Boyine Spongiform Encephalopathy--BSE We spent $151,000 in contingency funds, to purchase and dispose cattle imported from the United Kingdom--UK. Of the 496 cattle of U.K. origin imported into the United States from January 1981 through July 1989, tracing indicated that 113 were known to be alive. From March 20, 1996 to May 10, 1996, 37 of these animals were voluntarily disposed of by their owners. In June 1996, APHIS offered a window of opportunity to the owners of the remaining 76 cattle, for APHIS to purchase and dispose of these animals. In addition, APHIS reimbursed the owners of the 37 cattle disposed of between March 20 and May 10, 1996, the difference between the salvage price they received and the incentive price being offered to the owners of the remaining 76 animals. During this window, APHIS disposed of another 37 animals. An additional animal died from natural causes during this window. The owners of the remaining 38 did not choose to sell their animals to APHIS for disposal. Citrus canker We contributed, $1.6 million in contingency funds to the citrus canker emergency project in Florida. This amount supplemented $250,000 that APHIS redirected from the Miscellaneous Plant Pests and Diseases line item for a total APHIS contribution of approximately $1.9 million. The State of Florida contributed $2.3 million. The program consisted of an intensive survey to delimit the limits of the outbreak, regulatory action to prevent the movement of potentially infected materials, removal and destruction of infected trees, and pruning of exposed trees of all levels and softwood. Other activities included a safety program and a public relations campaign to inform the public of the infestation and the project's progress. Mexican fruit fly APHIS spent $761,00 in contingency funds to assist the State ofCalifornia in eradicating two outbreaks of Mexican fruit flies in the City Terrace region of Los Angeles County and the National City area of San Diego County. Through a 50/50 cost-share arrangement, APHIS and the California Department of Food and Agriculture--CDFA--conducted sterile fly releases, delimiting and monitoring surveys, limited ground application of pesticides, and regulatory activities. The Los Angeles County program consisted of ground treatments of Malathion and bait mixture followed by sterile fly release over a 16-square-mile area. The flies used were raised in a fruit fly facility in Mexico that is jointly funded by Mexico and CDFA. In the San Diego program, CDFA conducted ground application of malathion and bait mixture, fruit cutting and stripping followed by the aerial releases of 13 million sterile flies per week over a 9 square mile area with flies produced by the APHIS rearing facility in Mission, Texas. The sterile flies were released for two life cycles of the pest, followed by intensive trapping. In the San Diego area, emergency and regulatory activities were terminated in July 1996. Regulatory and trapping activities continue in Los Angeles County. Pine Shoot Beetle--PSB We spent $268,509 contingency funds for surveys at the leading edge of the infestation in northeastern States. Specific activities included servicing traps, placing bait logs in the eight States, and conducting delimiting surveys on the leading edge of the infestation to determine the pest's distribution. Since the PSB was first detected in Ohio in July 1992, surveys have detected it in 147 counties in eight States: Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Since November 1992, APHIS and the States have been conducting regulatory actions to control the interstate movement of regulated articles out of the quarantine area. The infested States support the cooperative program with parallel quarantines and in-kind cost sharing. These activities are designed to prevent the artificial movement of the PSB from infested to non-infested areas in the United States. Vesicular stomatitis We spent $134,000 in contingency funds to respond to a vesicular stomatitis outbreak in the Western States. Vesicular stomatitis is a viral disease that primarily affects cattle, horses, and swine. While the disease can cause economic losses to livestock producers, such as weight loss and a loss in milk production, it is particularly significant because of its outward signs being identical to those of FMD disease. During the outbreak, which began in May 1995 and ended in January 1996, APHIS investigated a total of 1,162 premises. Of the premises investigated, 367 were found positive with 186 in New Mexico, 165 in Colorado, 1 in Arizona, 1 in Texas, 6 in Utah, and 8 in Wyoming. Of the 367 premises, 53 involved bovines only, 250 involved equines only, 37 involved bovines and equines, and 27 involved bovines and/or equine plus another species (llama, etc.). Karnal bunt In March 1996, the pathogen that causes KB was detected in certified wheat seed produced in Arizona; this marked the first time that the pathogen had been detected in the United States. Based on this detection and its possible repercussions, Secretary Glickman declared an emergency and an extraordinary emergency, transferring $24.7 million from the Commodity Credit Corporaiton--CCC--to eradicate KB in areas of Arizona where the disease was present and to protect areas in Texas and New Mexico where the disease might have been introduced by planting infected seed. Shortly thereafter, APHIS initiated a program consisting of survey, regulatory, identification, and investigation activities, as well as control and compensation. On May 10, 1996, an additional $12 million was transferred from the CCC, primarily for similar activities in California. This second transfer brought the total availability for FY 1996 to $36.7 million. Of this total, $18.7 million was specifically allocated for compensation payments to millers, farmers, and grain handlers. The balance of $18 million was allocated for operating costs, which cover surveys, testing, regulatory, and laboratory work. The main goals of the program are to: (1) protect U.S. export markets; (2) protect U.S. wheat producers in KB-free areas; (3) provide the best possible options for producers in regulated areas; and (4) maintain the best possible information on where KB is located. So far, the USDA has been able to prevent the presence of KB in the United States from crippling the $5.9 billion wheat export market. Preserving this market is highly dependent on our successful continuation of the regulatory program and ongoing national survey to document that major wheat-producing areas of the U.S. are free of KB. APHIS conducted investigations in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to determine the origin and destination of contaminated seed. Also, the Agency regulated the movement of wheat and other articles that could cause further spread of the disease and developed sampling and testing systems that would allow for the movement of grain found free of KB from the regulated area. We identified infected properties in Arizona and California by conducting surveys of wheat just before harvest. Preharvest survey, however, is expensive and intrusive to growers; we are designing alternatives to evaluate the status of fields growing wheat. APHIS organized a national survey program to determine if KB was present in other wheat-growing areas of the United States. The methodology we are using has proven to be extremely effective in detecting teliospores in wheat samples. Current results of the national survey--which tested approximately 16,000 samples representing all wheat-growing areas of the U.S.--demonstrate that the vast majority of the United States, including the wheat belt, is free of KB. Mediterranean fruit fly--medfly In FY 1996, APHIS and CDFA addressed the Medfly emergency through a 1,531-square-mile quarantine area in the Los Angeles Basin that encompassed parts of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Orange Counties. A total of $10 million was available through use of the Secretary's emergency transfer authority from Commodity Credit Corporation. We released 430 million sterile flies per week over an area of approximately 1,450 square miles. Sterile fly releases were completed in March followed by intensive trapping. The quarantine in the Los Angeles Basin ended on July 31, 1996. In the populated, mainly urban areas of the Los Angeles Basin, the Medfly program released sterile flies as the principal method of eradication, with some ground application of malathion bait. The aerial release of malathion was used on a very limited basis to combat outbreaks in commercial agriculture areas. Recent examples included outbreaks in Camarillo and Corona. Both occurred outside the LA Basin quarantine area in primarily commercial fruit and vegetable production areas and met specific criteria for malathion aerial spraying. Other activities included high density detectionand delimiting surveys, fruitstripping, and fruitcutting. Mr. Skeen. How was your emergency authority used in fiscal year 1996? How much did you use for each incidence and was it all transferred from CCC? Have you used your authority in 1997? Response. The Secretary used his emergency transfer authority in all cases transferring funds from the CCC in FY 1996 and FY 1997 for the following programs: EMERGENCY TRANSFERS [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approved for CCC Actual CCC FY 1996 FY 1996 FY 1997 release transfer obligations carryover available ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 1996: Karnal bunt.................................... $36,734 $24,940 $24,322 $12,412 .......... Mediterranean fruit fly........................ 10,000 7,409 8,723 2,591 2,591 FY 1997 (est.): Kernal bunt.................................... 34,759 34,759 ........... 12,412 47,171 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Includes FY 1995 carryover funds. Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on pages 47, 48, and 49 of last year's hearing record showing a breakout of the number of emergencies that occurred, as well as the amount of both agency and CCC funds that were used to combat the emergency to include fiscal year 1996 actuals and fiscal year 1997 estimates. [The information follows:] ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE EMERGENCY PROGRAM FUNDING [Dollars in thousands] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agency CCC Fiscal year Emergency funds expenditures ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1987........................................... Africanized honeybee.................. $1,750 ............ Avian influenza....................... 740 ............ Black parlatoria scale................ 300 ............ Citrus canker......................... 1,800 ............ Gypsy moth............................ 145 ............ Exotic newcastle...................... 605 ............ Medfly................................ 2,070 ............ 1988........................................... Africanized honeybee.................. 1,550 ............ Medfly................................ 868 ............ Melon fly............................. 313 ............ Peach fruit fly....................... 567 ............ Salmonella enteritidis................ 520 ............ Varroa mite........................... 1,162 ............ 1989........................................... Boll weevil........................... ......... $6,200 Exotic newcastle...................... 405 ............ Exotic ticks (ostrich)................ 275 ............ Medfly................................ 3,045 ............ TB.................................... 410 ............ 1990........................................... Africanized honeybee.................. 397 ............ Agricultural quarantine inspection.... 270 Gypsy moth............................ 541 ............ Medfly................................ ......... 29,842 Salmonella enteritidis................ ......... 2,880 Scrapie............................... 505 ............ TB.................................... 1,208 ............ 1991........................................... Bovine spongiform encephalopathy...... 487 ............ Chrysanthemum white rust.............. 170 ............ Gypsy moth............................ 572 ............ Exotic newcastle...................... 189 ............ Potato virus Y........................ 516 ............ Medfly................................ ......... 5,901 Salmonella enteritidis................ ......... 3,538 TB.................................... 1,202 ............ 1992........................................... AGM................................... ......... 8,880 Gypsy moth............................ 580 ............ Medfly................................ ......... 8,750 Potato virus Y........................ 1,311 ............ Salmonella enteritidis................ 2,460 297 Screwworm............................. 825 ............ Sweetpotato whitefly.................. 298 ............ 1993........................................... Avian influenza....................... 780 ............ Chrysanthemum white rust.............. 402 ............ Gypsy moth............................ 729 ............ Medfly................................ ......... 16,094 Potato virus Y........................ 752 ............ PSB................................... 635 ............ Salmonella enteritidis ............... 166 117 Scrapie............................... 1,920 ............ Screwworm............................. 1,575 ............ TB.................................... 602 ............ 1994........................................... AGM................................... ......... 3,439 Canine rabies......................... 474 ............ Chrysanthemum white rust.............. 282 ............ E. coli 0157:H7....................... 697 ............ EGM................................... 506 ............ Medfly................................ ......... 15,966 PSB................................... 449 ............ Tropical bont tick.................... 350 ............ 1995........................................... AGM................................... 3,000 1,841 Canine rabies......................... 1,319 ............ EGM................................... 986 ............ Medfly................................ \1\ 3,000 10,711 PSB................................... 892 ............ TB.................................... 30 ............ Vesicular Stomatitis.................. 720 ............ 1996........................................... AGM and EGM........................... 2,045 ............ Bovine spongiform encephalopathy...... 151 ............ Citrus Canker......................... 1,616 ............ Karnal bunt........................... ......... 24,322 Medfly................................ ......... 8,723 Mexican fruit fly..................... 761 ............ PSB................................... 269 ............ 1996 Summer Olympics.................. 429 ............ TB in Cervidae........................ 54 ............ Vesicular stomatitis.................. 134 ............ 1997 est....................................... AGM and EGM........................... 1,558 ............ Asian long-horned bettle.............. 694 ............ Bovine spongiform encephalopathy...... 101 ............ Citrus Canker......................... 2,900 ............ Karnal bunt........................... ......... 47,171 Medfly................................ ......... 1,227 PSB................................... 336 ............ TB in Cervidae........................ 400 ............ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Of this amount, $2 million was released from Contingency Fund and $1 million was transferred from the Buildings and Facilities account. tropical bont tick Mr. Skeen. Fiscal year 1995 was the first year APHIS requested funding to participate in a joint project with the Food and Agricultural Organization, the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture, and the Caribbean Community to eradicate the tropical bont tick from the Caribbean Islands. Please provide the Committee with an updated status report of this initiative? Response. Eradication activities started in Anguilla in June 1995, St. Kitts/Nevis in October 1995, and Montserrat in February 1996. Within these Islands, bi-weekly treatments with acaricides are applied to 73 percent of the animals on Anguilla, 68 percent of the animals on St. Kitts, and 96 percent of the animals on Nevis. As eradication progresses, the percentage of animals treated should increase and tick populations should decrease to very minimal levels of acceptable risk. Eradication phases in each country should continue for approximately 30 months. Treatments have been suspended on Montserrat due to volcanic activity. In FY 1997, the surveillance and other preparatory activities will begin in Antigua which has a significant livestock population relative to neighboring islands. Mr. Skeen. Also, update the table that appears on page 50 of last year's hearing record showing the funding levels provided to the project by organization. Response. Although the cooperative eradication program will be extended by 1 year, estimated total costs for the 6-year cooperative program continue to be approximately $29.5 million. Organization Amount U.S. Department of Agriculture/APHIS.................... $2,500,000 Food and Agriculture Organization--FAO.................. 1,363,000 Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture--IICA................................... 250,000 Caribbean Community (Caricom)................................. 4,600,000 European Union/CAP...................................... 900,000 European Union/France \1\............................... 17,000,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total pledged..................................... 26,613,000 Program estimate........................................ 29,500,000 Current shortfall....................................... 2,887,000 \1\ Although France received money from the European Union to eradicate the TBT on their islands in the Caribbean, France insists on operating independently of the Regional Amblyomma Eradication Program. In addition, FAO and the International Fund for Agricultural Development--IFAD--agreed to fund $1 million for TBT research in the Caribbean. This research will support the CAP's eradication activities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- foot-and-mouth disease Mr. Skeen. The Vesicular Disease Diagnostic Laboratory in Panama City, Panama provides foot-and-mouth disease testing for the Central American region. It was closed in September 1994 for repairs and was scheduled to reopen in January 1996, but was delayed. What was the reason for this delay and when do you expect it to reopen? Response. The delay is reopening the APHIS-supported Vesicular Disease Diagnostic Laboratory--LADIVES--in Panama City, Panama, was caused by several factors, including: (a) difficulties in selecting a contractor to conduct a careful needs assessment of the physical plant for repairs and upgrades; (b) funding and logistical issues related to repairs and biosecure sealant treatments necessary to prepare the laboratory for level 3 biosecurity--a high security level; (c) the reduction in Defense operations in the Canal Zone reduced the availability of trained technicians in Panama required for the specialized work; and (d) delays in the shipment of various equipment, including air flow systems and filters from the Foreign Animal Diseases Diagnostic Laboratory at Plum Island, New York. During the period LADIVES was closed, diagnostic functions were performed by the facility at Plum Island. In November 1996, LADIVES completed the necessary renovations and reopened to provide biocontainment and appropriate diagnostic capabilities for exotic animal diseases including FMD. Through these improvements, the laboratory provides laboratory diagnosis and detection capabilities for the Central American region that meet world standards. LADIVES supports the U.S.-Panama Cooperative Program for the Prevention of Foot-and-Mouth Disease--COPFA, which continues to maintain the Darien Gap area of Panama free from FMD through active field surveillance in the border area and the high-risk Panamanian ports. overseas locations Mr. Skeen. Through your international program, APHIS maintains a presence in countries that are significant agricultural trading partners. For the record, please provide a list of all countries where APHIS has personnel, the number of employees in that country, and a brief description of the work conducted in that country. [The information follows:] FOREIGN PROGRAM LOCATIONS, PERSONNEL, AND ACTIVITIES ------------------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. Country personnel Programs ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Agrentina...................... 1 Preclearance. Brazil......................... 1 FMD liaison. Chile.......................... 2 Regional office, preclearance, International Programs.\1\ Colombia \2\................... 1 FMD, International Programs,\1\ emphasis on plant health trade issues. Peru........................... 1 Preclearance, International Programs. Australia...................... 1 International Programs.\1\ China.......................... 1 International Programs,\1\ emphasis on plant trade issues. Japan.......................... 1 International Programs,\1\ emphasis on trade dispute resolution and harmonization of phytosanitary requirements. Korea.......................... 1 International Programs,\1\ emphasis on plant trade issues. Austria........................ 1 International Programs.\1\ Belgium........................ 2 Regional office, International Programs,\1\ emphasis on European Union trade issues. Germany........................ 1 Military preclearance. Italy.......................... 1 International Programs,\1\ emphasis on sanitary and phytosanitary requirements. Netherlands.................... 2 Bulb preclearance. Kenya.......................... 1 International Programs,\1\ emphasis on technical exchange and cooperation. Costa Rica..................... 4 International Programs,\1\ Screwworm, preclearance. Guatemala...................... 3 Regional office, Medfly rearing facility, International Programs,\1\ FMD, technical cooperation, trade dispute resolution, preclearance. Mexico......................... 29 Regional office, Screwworm, International Programs,\1\ Medfly, Mexfly, Boll Weevil, technical cooperation, FMD diagnostic laboratory, preclearance. Nicaragua...................... 3 Screwworm, International Programs.\1\ Panama......................... 1 International Programs,\1\ FMD commission. Dominican Republic............. 1 Regional office, International Programs,\1\ Tropical Bont Tick, Pest Detection. Haiti.......................... 1 Preclearance. Jamaica........................ 1 Preclearance. Barbados....................... 1 Tropical Bont Tick. Bahamas........................ 2 Passenger preclearance. Bermuda........................ 1 Passenger preclearance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ International Programs provide leadership, management, and coordination of international activities pertaining to phyto- and zoosanitary measures; and technical cooperation with foreign counterparts to facilitate international trade and traffic in U.S. agricultural products/services. \2\ The position in Colombia is scheduled to be vacated in July 1997. Currently, there are no plans to fill the position. Note: The Honduras office closed in January 1997. federal/non-federal dollars Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on pages 56 and 57 showing a breakout of all Federal and non-Federal dollars for all APHIS programs to include fiscal year 1997. [The information follows:] APHIS BUDGET [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FY 1996 FY 1997 ------------------------------------------- Line-item Non- Non- Fedeal Federal Federal Federal ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pest & disease exclusion: AQI: Appropriated........ $24,838 $406 $26,547 $406 User fees........... 118,478 630 98,000 630 Cattle ticks............ 4,932 1,802 4,537 2,000 Foot-and-mouth disease.. 4,131 3,750 3,991 3,106 Fruit fly exclusion and detection.............. 16,263 5,300 21,161 7,857 Sanitary/Phytosanitary standards.............. Import-Export: Appropriated........... 7,861 ......... 6,847 ......... International programs.. 5,775 ......... 6,643 ......... Screwworm............... 30,394 4,642 31,713 4,292 Tropical bont tick...... 453 ......... 452 ......... ------------------------------------------- Subtotal, pest and disease exclusion.... 213,125 16,270 199,891 17,865 Plant animal health monitoring: Animal health monitoring & surveillance......... 58,254 106,341 60,831 107,000 Animal & plan reg. enforcement............ 5,892 ......... 5,855 ......... Pest detection.......... 4,189 61,619 4,202 76,141 ------------------------------------------- Subtotal, plant and animal health monitoring........... 68,335 169,586 70,888 186,375 Pest & disease management: Animal damage control-- operations............. 26,765 23,927 26,967 23,904 Aquaculture............. 483 394 571 414 Biocontrol.............. 6,286 1,043 6,290 3,366 Boll weevil............. 17,046 69,300 16,209 99,300 Brucellosis eradication. 23,618 79,174 21,661 80,000 Golden nematode......... 419 4,634 444 4,728 Gypsy moth.............. 4,351 3,086 4,367 3,086 Imported fire ant....... 963 1,206 1,000 1,206 Miscellaneous plant pests & dis............ 1,542 7,233 1,516 7,233 Noxious weeds........... 358 3,195 404 3,195 Pink bollworm........... 1,034 6,772 1,069 6,772 Pseudorabies............ 4,345 12,920 4,518 13,000 Scrapie................. 2,384 1,282 2,967 1,500 Silver leaf whitefly.... 2,323 450 1,888 458 Tuberculosis............ 4,434 7,935 4,948 8,000 Witchweed............... 1,701 273 1,662 273 ------------------------------------------- Subtotal, pest and disease management... 98,052 224,785 94,819 259,319 Animal care: Animal welfare.......... 9,353 ......... 9,185 ......... Horse protection........ 413 ......... 360 ......... ------------------------------------------- Subtotal, animal care. 9,766 ......... 9,545 ......... Scientific and technical services: ADC methods development. 9,716 1,223 10,591 1,223 Biotechnology/ environmental protection............. 7,563 190 8,132 190 Integrated systems acquisition project.... 825 ......... 4,000 ......... Plant methods and biological control laboratories........... 5,067 ......... 5,048 ......... Veterinary biologics.... 10,520 ......... 10,360 ......... Veterinary diagnostics.. 15,078 ......... 15,473 ......... ------------------------------------------- Subtotal, Scientific and Technical Services..... 48,769 1,413 53,604 1,413 Contingency fund........ 5,444 116 4,500 ......... CCC transfers........... 33,502 ......... 47,171 2,568 Grasshopper no-year..... 1,313 550 2,236 550 AQI User Fee Reserve.... ......... ......... 36,108 ......... Advances and Reimbursements; Federal............. 8,779 ......... 7,838 ......... Non-Federal......... ......... 39,001 ......... 41,706 Trust Funds............. 7,966 ......... 6,998 ......... ------------------------------------------- Total, available or estimate............. 495,051 412,720 533,598 468,090 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ pink bollworm Mr. Skeen. The pink bollworm demonstration project in the Imperial/ Coachella Valley has been continued to determine the effectiveness of sterile moth releases. Fiscal year 1996 was the second year of this three year project. What are the preliminary results of this project? Response. Through the project, we have learned that releasing a sufficient amount of sterile moths effectively suppresses native moths and virtually eliminates pink bollworm damage without the use of pesticides. However, when native moth populations are extraordinarily high, the use of sterile moths is not feasible. When a suitable sterile moth to native mothratio could not be maintained, we used other non- pesticidal techniques, such as pheromone release and cultural control methods. Another approach that proved successful in the demonstration project involved the use of genetically-engineered cotton, which contains a toxin that kills pink bollworm and other moth pests when they eat cotton. We plan to integrate our successes from this demonstration project into our regular program operations. Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 58 of last year's hearing record showing the amount of funds provided by cotton producers to operate pink bollworm facility, to include fiscal year 1996. [The information follows:] Producer contributions to operate the pink bollworm rearing facility [In thousands of dollars] Fiscal year Contributions 1992.......................................................... $1,472 1993.......................................................... 1,833 1994.......................................................... 1,980 1995.......................................................... 2,150 1996.......................................................... 2,300 Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the risk assessment being conducted in cooperation with Cotton, Inc. to determine if the pink bollworm reached its economic range? Response. In the next few months, we will enter into a cooperative agreement with the University of Minnesota to conduct this risk assessment. The assessment will begin soon and will conclude in late FY 1998. APHIS will provide $50,000 in each of the 2 years to complete the assessment. In addition to our contribution, Cotton, Inc., will contribute up to $15,000. We expect the final report to be completed by early FY 1999. contingency fund Mr. Skeen. What is the current status of the APHIS Contingency Fund? [The information follows:] 1996 Carryover.......................................... $3,109,270 1997 Appropriation...................................... 4,500,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total Available................................... $7,609,270 FY 1997 Approved Releases: Asian Gypsy Moth/European Gypsy Moth................ (1,557,543) Asian Long-Horned Beetle............................ (694,000) Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.................... (100,778) Citrus Canker....................................... (2,900,000) Pine Shoot Beetle................................... (336,056) TB in Cervidae...................................... (400,000) -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Balance Available................................... $1,620,893 Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 74 of last year's hearing record, listing all funding expenditures from the Contingency Fund, to include fiscal year 1996 actuals and fiscal year 1997 estimates. [The information follows:] CONTINGENCY FUND [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FY 1997 Program FY 1996 actual estimated obligations obligations ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Asian gypsy moth/European gypsy moth.... $2,045 $1,558 Asian long-horned beetle................ .............. 694 Bovine spongiform encephalopathy........ 151 101 Citrus Canker........................... 1,616 2,900 Mexican fruit fly....................... 761 .............. Pine shoot beetle....................... 269 336 Summer Olympics (1996).................. 429 .............. TB in Cervidae.......................... 54 400 Vesicular stomatitis.................... 134 .............. ------------------------------- Total................................. 5,459 5,989 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ animal import centers Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 75 of last year's hearing volume which shows the number of days occupied and the operating costs and revenues collected for each of the Animal Import Centers to include fiscal year 1996. [The information follows:] NUMBER OF DAYS OCCUPIED--FY 1992-96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AIC 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newburg............................................................ 366 365 365 365 365 Miami.............................................................. 366 365 365 365 365 Hawaii............................................................. 366 365 365 365 365 Harry S Truman..................................................... 180 112 90 178 135 Total........................................................ 1,278 1,207 1,185 1,273 1,230 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annual operating costs and the revenue over the last 5 years for each AIC are shown in the following table: AIC OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUE FY 1992-96 [$000] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 Site ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cost Revenue Cost Revenue Cost Revenue Cost Revenue Cost Revenue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newburg....................................................... 1,409 1,673 1,643 1,819 1,618 2,047 1,608 1,601 1,502 1,768 Miami......................................................... 816 326 882 628 1,052 966 962 578 1,113 716 Hawaii........................................................ 160 53 192 280 317 342 283 159 247 20 Truman........................................................ 1,073 753 1,403 1,203 1,328 983 1,826 1,582 1,361 1,229 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL................................................... 3,458 2,805 4,120 3,830 4,315 4,338 4,679 3,920 4,223 3,733 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- silverleaf whitefly Mr. Skeen. What is the status of sweet potato whitefly activities during fiscal year 1997? Response. Our response to the silverleaf whitefly--SLW--has been guided by a 5-year National Research and Action Plan for Development of management and Control Methodology. This plan concluded in January 1997, and is providing a firm base for the development of efficient long-term strategies for managing SLW populations. During the 5 years of the Action Plan, we have screened over 240 worldwide collections of SLW biological control agents and processed them through quarantine. As a result of this screening process, we have found 6 to 10 biological control agents in the last 3 years that show the best potential for managing the SLW. Also in FY 1997, we are developing strategies for improved mass propagation of exotic parasites and improved rearing and release technologies by releasing parasites in a 10-acre demonstration plot. In addition, we are continuing to make great strides in the areas of biocontrol, integrated pest management techniques, and fundamental research, morphology, behavior, biotypes, and vector interactions regarding SLW. Mr. Skeen. What is the status of turning the strategy of releasing sweet potato whitefly natural enemies in the greenhouse over to the public sector? Response. In FY 1996, we released SLW natural enemies in greenhouses in northeastern States, primarily Connecticut. In this project, we demonstrated that using biological control techniques against SLW in greenhouses is a very effective management strategy. We had particular success using the Nile Delta strain of Encarsia formosa as a SLW parasitoid on tomatoes and poinsettias in New Hampshire and Connecticut. To begin transferring this effective strategy to industry, we have begun negotiating with a company in Colorado that supplies biological agents to growers to establish a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement. Through this agreement, we plan to transfer technology and material so the company can produce natural enemies and make them available to their greenhouse customers. We will be able to transfer most of this technology in FY 1997, with the remainder being transferred in FY 1998. import/export/veterinary diagnostic user fees Mr. Skeen. Provide a five year table that shows the projected revenue for import/export user fees and the projected revenue for veterinary diagnostic user fees including fiscal year 1997 estimates. [The information follows:] VETERINARY SERVICES ESTIMATED USER FEE REVENUE [Dollars in thousands] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year-- -------------------------------------------- 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Import/export user fees............................................ 10,036 10,036 10,036 10,036 10,036 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- import/export inspection program Mr. Skeen. Please update the tables that appear on page 80 of last year's hearing record showing both the appropriated and reimbursed activities and expenses of the import/export inspection program to include fiscal year 1996 actualities and fiscal year 1997 estimates. [The information follows:] IMPORT-EXPORT APPROPRIATED ACTIVITIES AND EXPENSES [Dollars in thousands] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FY 1996 FY 1997 Appropriated activity expenses expenses (act.) (est.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Inspection of military installations.......... 160 140 Development of new agricultural markets....... 315 290 International Trade Support................... 633 550 Non-regulatory, Agency-initiated inspections.. 628 530 Smuggled bird disease status and quarantine determinations............................... 157 135 Monitoring disease status of foreign countries 175 145 Education on scientific advances related to animal health................................ 145 135 Stray Animal Retrieval........................ 150 130 State and regional support.................... 1,800 1,575 Export: endorse health certificates, service farms of origin for export shipments, inspect embryo transfer facilities, inspect animals, etc.......................................... 874 ........... National Center for Import and Export--NCIE... 2,472 2,807 Commercial Bird Activities.................... 220 210 Maintain Truman animal import center during downtime..................................... 132 200 ------------------------- Total, appropriated..................... 7,861 6,847 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Note 1. Export user fees implemented for these activities in June 1996. Note 2. The National Center for Import and Export--NCIE--operations consists primarily of providing information, advising, and consulting with industry groups, the public, and other governments; conducting risk assessments; certifying export products; and developing and implementing standards, regulations, and policies. This work prevents animal disease introduction from imported animals or animal products and ensures that animals offered by the United States for export meet criteria of the importing country. Mr. Skeen. Also update the table that appears on page 81 of last year's hearing record, showing the expenses related to the program, to include fiscal year 1996 actualities and fiscal year 1997 estimates. [The information follows:] Foreign Affairs Administrative Support Services Amount Fiscal year: 1991................................................ $675,179 1992................................................ 802,080 1993................................................ 1,031,600 1994................................................ 1,079,446 1995................................................ 1,086,617 1996................................................ 1,023,810 1997 (est.) \1\..................................... 1,025,000 \1\ In FY 1997, the Department of State began to transition from the outdated Foreign Affairs Administrative Support Services--FAASS--to the new International Cooperative Administrative Support System--ICASS. The ICASS system will be fully implemented in FY 1998. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- biotechnology Mr. Skeen. Please update the staffing and funding for biotechnology table that appears on page 83 of last year's hearing record. [The information follows:] STAFFING AND FUNDING FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY [Dollars in thousands] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year---- -------------------------------------------- 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Funding............................................................ 4,571 4,829 4,738 4,452 5,114 Staff years........................................................ 59 58 56 57 71 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: The environmental component and the National Monitoring and Residue Analysis Laboratory reimbursable of the Biotechnology and Environmental Protection line-item have not been included in this table. Beginning in FY 1997, this table includes funding for the Pesticide Data Program, formerly funded by the Agriculture Marketing Service. plant methods Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 84 of last year's hearing record, showing the amount spent by location on plant methods development activities, to include fiscal year 1996 actuals and fiscal year 1997 estimates. Response. The following table shows funding for all APHIS plant methods development activities, not just those funded by the Plant Methods Development Laboratories line item: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Center FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hoboken, NJ.................................... $568,035 $551,457 $349,555 0 0 Mission, TX.................................... 696,951 603,430 598,757 $455,152 $502,953 Gainesville, FL \1\............................ 180,103 184,097 206,322 249,196 167,289 Guatemala City \1\............................. 190,195 181,697 201,015 227,576 211,827 State College, MS \1\.......................... 111,611 69,800 61,363 126,142 120,423 Waimanalo, HI \1\.............................. 120,154 209,165 235,606 469,944 432,344 Otis Air Base, MA \2\.......................... 1,131,493 1,201,933 1,371,022 1,474,692 1,648,991 Phoenix, AZ \3\................................ 805,593 820,805 893,514 1,092,157 1,042,614 Brawley, CA \1\................................ 250,000 239,075 232,011 176,772 162,240 Whiteville, NC \4\............................. 438,054 390,638 357,152 ........... ........... Dillon, SC \1\ \4\............................. 214,816 192,424 175,885 ........... ........... Oxford, NC \4\................................. ........... ........... ........... 942,453 894,510 Gulfport, MS \5\............................... 310,084 554,702 573,445 613,317 585,512 Beltsville, MD \1\............................. ........... ........... 137,536 182,061 173,807 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total.................................... 5,017,089 5,199,223 5,393,183 6,009,432 5,942,510 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Denotes satellite locations or substations. \2\ This row includes funding from the Miscellaneous Plant Pests and Diseases line item in FY 1997 for Japanese beetle activities. \3\ This row includes funds from the grasshopper (through FY 1995) and SLW line items. The row showing ``Brawley, California'' includes funding from the SLW line item. \4\ In FY 1996, the activities formerly conducted at Whiteville and Dillon were transferred to Oxford and funded from the AQI User Fees line item. \5\ This row includes funding from the IFA line item. centers of excellence Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 366 of last year's hearing record showing the amount provided to each Center of Excellence, by agency, for each fiscal year that funding has been provided. Also include the amount provided by the university and any private entity. [The information follows:] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amount Fiscal year Center of Excellence Agency (estimated) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1994..................................... Lincoln University......... APHIS...................... $117,000 1995..................................... Arkansas-Pine Bluff........ APHIS...................... 45,000 ........................... GIPSA...................... 4,000 1995..................................... Lincoln University......... APHIS...................... 117,000 ........................... NRCS....................... 225,000 ........................... FS......................... 225,000 ........................... FSA........................ 50,000 1996..................................... Arkansas-Pine Bluff........ APHIS...................... 33,000 ........................... GIPSA...................... 11,000 1996..................................... Lincoln University......... APHIS...................... 148,000 ........................... NRCS....................... 250,000 ........................... FS......................... 200,000 ........................... FSA........................ 55,000 1997..................................... Arkansas-Pine Bluff........ APHIS...................... 33,000 ........................... GIPSA...................... 11,000 1997..................................... Lincoln University......... APHIS...................... 148,000 ........................... NRCS....................... 250,000 ........................... FS......................... 200,000 ........................... FSA........................ 60,000 1997..................................... Tuskeegee University....... APHIS...................... 56,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- international programs Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 85 of last year's hearing record showing how much you spent in foreign countries to include fiscal year 1996 actuals and 1997 estimates. [The information follows:] APHIS SPENDING BY COUNTRY 1995-1997 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Country 1995 1996 1997 (est.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Asia/Pacific........................................... $1,115,436 $1,066,841 $1,315,702 Brazil................................................. ................. 93,303 135,493 Caribbbean............................................. 988,884 1,076,133 1,092,321 Central America........................................ 6,816,091 10,521,153 10,180,358 Chile.................................................. 302,993 297,939 424,254 Colombia............................................... 1,771,285 1,819,591 1,797,736 Dominican Republic..................................... 238,947 260,147 302,313 Europe/Africa.......................................... 1,609,183 1,527,418 2,077,764 Guatemala.............................................. 3,996,132 4,139,670 4,419,163 Mexico................................................. 26,328,441 20,192,331 22,109,675 Panama................................................. 748,803 1,106,170 1,162,930 Peru................................................... ................. 280,376 243,862 Surinam................................................ 204,933 249,000 150,000 Venezuela.............................................. 97,553 ................. ................. -------------------------------------------------------- Total............................................ 44,218,681 42,630,072 45,411,571 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- history of budget request Mr. Skeen. Provide a complete breakout of your budget request to the Office of the Secretary, the Secretary's request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the OMB allowance? [The information follows:] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year 1998 -------------------------------------- Line item Agency Dept. OMB request passback allowance ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pest and disease exclusion: AQI user fees................ $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 AQI appropriated............. 27,979 27,814 27,814 Cattle ticks................. 4,537 4,427 4,427 Foot and mouth disease....... 3,991 3,803 3,803 Fruit fly exclusion and detection................... 22,373 20,970 20,970 Import/export trade.......... 7,873 6,815 6,815 International programs....... 8,756 6,630 6,630 Screwworm.................... 31,713 31,335 31,335 Tropical Bont Tick........... 535 444 444 -------------------------------------- Total, pest & dis. exclusion................. 207,757 202,238 202,238 ====================================== Plant and animal monitoring: Animal health mon. & surveillance................ 64,040 60,564 60,564 Animal health reg. enforcement................. 5,855 5,722 5,722 -------------------------------------- Total, plant & animal monitoring................ 82,220 75,018 75,018 ====================================== Pest and disease management: ADC operations............... 27,975 25,763 23,713 Aquculture................... 913 567 567 Biocontrol................... 6,842 6,275 6,275 Boll Weevil.................. 8,427 8,279 6,376 Brucellosis.................. 20,124 19,818 19,818 Golden Nematode.............. 444 435 435 Grasshopper/Mormon Cricket... 2,659 0 0 Gypsy Moth................... 5,642 4,366 4,366 Misc. plant pests & diseases. 3,613 1,533 1,533 Noxious Weeds................ 2,170 406 406 Pink Bollworm................ 1,463 1,048 1,048 Pseudorabies................. 4,971 4,481 4,481 Scrapie...................... 2,161 2,931 2,931 Sweet Potato Whitefly........ 1,753 1,877 1,877 Tuberculosis................. 5,551 4,920 4,920 Witchweed.................... 1,662 1,638 1,638 -------------------------------------- Total, pest & disease management................ 96,370 84,337 80,384 ====================================== Animal care: Animal welfare............... 10,416 9,175 9,175 Horse protection............. 360 353 353 Humane transp/slaughter of horses...................... 411 0 0 -------------------------------------- Total, animal care......... 11,187 9,528 9,528 ====================================== Scientific and tech. services: ADC methods development...... 11,121 9,672 9,672 Biotechnology/environmental prot........................ 7,870 8,139 8,139 ISAP......................... 4,000 3,951 4,000 Plant methods biocontrol labs 6,509 5,102 5,102 Veterinary biologics......... 11,430 10,345 10,345 Veterinary diagnostics....... 17,851 15,921 15,622 -------------------------------------- Total, scientific & tech. services.................. 58,781 53,130 52,880 ====================================== Contingency fund............. 5,000 4,443 4,443 New user fees................ 0 -7,503 -9,551 -------------------------------------- Total, S&E................. 464,946 421,191 414,940 ====================================== Buildings and facilities..... 47,788 7,200 7,200 -------------------------------------- Total, APHIS............... 512,734 428,391 422,140 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ gao/oig audits Mr. Skeen. Briefly describe the findings and recommendations and actions taken on each GAO and OIG audit listed in the explanatory notes. [The information follows:] gao reports #RCED-96-3, 10/30/95, ADC Program: Efforts to Protect Livestock from Predators Findings: (1) Written program policies call for field personnel to give preference to nonlethal control methods when practical and effective; (2) APHIS officials indicated that nonlethal methods are more appropriately used by livestock operators, have limited effectiveness, and are not practical for field personnel use. Recommendations: (1) Recommend that the Administrator of APHIS revise the Animal Damage Control program's written guidance to specify the role and use of nonlethal methods in controlling livestock predators. Actions: We are reviewing the recommendations made in the report. Wewill provide the Committee with actions taken on each GAO and OIG audit listed in the Explanatory Notes that relate specifically to APHIS when those actions are determined. #T-NSAID-96-85, 1/25/96, Travel of Government Officials on Government Aircraft This report cited in the Explanatory Notes was inadvertently listed as a GAO report. It was testimony presented to the House Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology by the Director of Military Operations and Capabilities Issues, National Security and International Affairs Division of GAO. #RCED-986-182-R, 6/7/95, Analysis of USDA Budgets, Fiscal Year 1996 and 1997 Findings: (1) Identified approximately $1.35 billion in potential rescissions to USDA's FY 1996 appropriation, and $2.7 billion in potential reductions to USDA's budget request for FY 1997 Recommendations: No recommendations were made. oig reports #33601-0001-CH, 6/28/96, Licensing of Animal Exhibitors Findings: (1) Individuals use APHIS exhibitor licenses to keep exotic pets and circumvent State and local laws; (2) Individuals use APHIS licenses to circumvent State and local laws; (3) APHIS could conserve Agency resources and eliminate duplication of efforts through closer coordination with State agencies; (4) Regulations allow unqualified individuals to obtain a license with no limits on animals; (5) APHIS has no control over the number or species of animals maintained by a licensed exhibitor. Recommendations: (1) Amend the regulatory definition of an exhibitor to exclude those individuals who are pet owners rather than true exhibitors; (2a) Deny licenses to applicants whose possession of wild or exotic animals would violate State or local laws; (2b) Establish policy and procedures requiring APHIS, prior to approving an application for license, to submit written notification to the applicable State authorities; (3) Develop and enter into cooperative agreements with appropriate State agencies to eliminate duplication of efforts at both levels; (4a) Develop standards which applicants for APHIS Class ``C'' licenses must meet before licenses are issued, addressing the applicants' level of knowledge and experience in handling such animals; (4b) Strengthen the regulations requiring all individuals applying for or renewing a license to complete a package including documentation; (5) Strengthen the regulations to restrict the number and type of species a licensee may exhibit, by developing sub- classes of the Class ``C'' license to cover specific categories of animals that require special knowledge, care, and handling. Actions: We are reviewing the recommendations made in the report. We will provide the Committee with actions taken on each GAO and OIG audit listed in the Explanatory Notes that relate specifically to APHIS when those actions are determined. #33099-0001-CH, 11/15/96, APHIS' Controls over Cooperative Agreements Findings: (1) APHIS oversight of cooperative agreements could be strengthened; (2) APHIS agreement database does not contain current information; (3) Completed agreements need to be timely closed. Recommendations: (1a) Require the cited cooperators to reimburse APHIS for the $84,009 in unsupported and duplicate costs; (1b) Establish procedures requiring the Authorized Departmental Officer's Designated Representative--ADODR--to check supporting documentation for expenses prior to approving cooperators' claims; (1c) Establish procedures through which the Resource Management Systems and Evaluation Staff can evaluate compliance with its recommendations and report instances of disagreement or inadequate corrective actions to officials having the authority to resolve recommendations; (2) Issue procedures requiring regional offices to timely enter all agreements and modification into the Agreement Tracking System; (3a) Institute procedures to require that ADODRs ensure the timely submission of the cooperators' final SF-269 financial status reports; (3b) Ensure that agreement closeout information is timely entered into the Agreement Tracking System; (3c) Initiate actions to deobligate the cited $1,356,068 in outstanding agreement funds. Actions: We are reviewing the recommendations made in the report. We will provide the Committee with actions taken on each GAO and OIG audit listed in the Explanatory Notes that relate specifically to APHIS when those actions are determined. #330002-01-HY, 6/6/96, ADC's Management of Hazardous Materials Findings: (1) ADC's regulations did not include procedures for storing explosive components; (2) Storage facilities were not in compliance with standards; (3) Safety inspection data was not submitted to APHIS headquarters; (4) Personal protective equipment assessment not documented; (5) A written hazard communication program had not been established; (6) Three-year self-evaluations were not conducted; (7) Lockout/tagout program not implemented; (8) Permit system needed for confined spaces; (9) Management Information Systems Data on explosives was not accurate; (10) Explosives inventory records were not accurate. Recommendations: (1) Include in ADC's policy manuals and directives the requirement for compliance with OSHA safety and hazardous material regulations; (2a) Direct the ADC facilities visited during the audit to correct the cited conditions that were not in compliance with OSHA requirements; (2b) Conduct a follow up inspection to ensure the cited conditions have been corrected; (2c) Determine the feasibility of repairing the Brandon, MS, storage facility to comply with OSHA regulations, or relocate explosive components to another facility; (2d) Reduce the inventory of ammonium nitrate and maintain at the Rhinelander facility to a quantity below 1,000 pounds, or relocate it to another facility; (3a) develop an inspection checklist to include a review of procedures used for handling explosives as required by OSHA regulations; (3b) Conduct safety inspections at least annually at each ADC facility, and ensure that the reports are timely submitted to APHIS headquarters for appropriate action; (4a) Develop appropriate documentation for the conduct of workplace hazard assessments to include requirements outlined in OSH regulations; (4b) Establish controls to ensure that workplace hazard assessments are timely performed; (5) Develop and implement a comprehensive Hazard Communication Program and ensure employees are properly trained; (6a) Develop a self-evaluation program and report the results to a designated safety and health official and to APHIS' National Safety and Health Council; (6b) Utilize the results of the self-evaluations to determine if the safety and health program is effective and/or whether improvements are needed; (7a) Develop, document, and implement a lockout/tagout program to provide increased safety measures for employees who service equipment; (7b) Provide training to employees on the use of lockout/tagout procedures; (8a) Develop procedures and monitoring devices for a permit system that regulates the safety of employees entering confined spaces; (8b) Provide training to employees in the use of permit systems to enhance the safe performance of their duties; (9a) Develop and implement procedures to ensure that a physical inventory is performed when explosives are stored, moved, or discontinued; (9b) Conduct an inventory of explosives at least annually, and document the results on the Explosives Inventory Record-- EIR; (9c) Establish procedures to ensure the accuracy of inventory forms andrecords, i.e., second-party reviews; (9d) Implement a procedure requiring periodic reconciliation between information on Site Blasting Records and MIS; (10) Determine whether the current EIR needs to be revised to facilitate accounting for explosives. #50018-2-HY, 2/12/96, Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture Findings: (1) The SR-334 Minority Business Enterprise/Women Business Enterprise Utilization Report was not prepared by the department for the Pesticide Consolidation Program--PCP; (2) The department does not submit on a timely basis to the Veterinary Services field office the quarterly financial status report for the PCP; (3) there is no evidence that all the supporting documents of federal financial assistance prepared by the department for disbursements were verified before payment for PCP; (4) the copy of one supporting document prepared by the department does not contain the signature of the Finance Director and other authorized officials. Recommendations: (1) Implementation of an internal control procedure requiring the submission of such report to the EPA Grants Officer within 30 days of the end of the federal fiscal quarter; (2) the implementation of internal control procedures in order to assure compliance with reports deadlines, and to assign an official of the department to comply with this requirement; (3) a pre-intervention stamp should be placed in front of supporting documents of transactions, including the pre-intervention director signature and date of preparation, in order for the copies to show the stamp; include the signature of the Finance Director and other authorized officials on every copy of the official documents prepared by the department. Actions: We are reviewing the recommendations made in the report. We will provide the Committee with actions taken on each GAO and OIG audit listed in the Explanatory Notes that relate specifically to APHIS when those actions are determined. brown citrus aphid Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the brown citrus aphid and what is your plan to control this pest? Response. The brown citrus aphid--BCA--is an important citrus pest both because of its feeding damage on citrus trees and because it is the most efficient vector of citrus tristeza virus--CTV, a serious citrus disease. In recent years, BCA has been found to be established in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti. In November 1995, we detected it in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and it has since spread to commercial groves in southern Florida. As a result, the groves that use sour orange rootstock--approximately 20 percent of all citrus in Florida--are now susceptible to CTV. In the fall of 1996, BCA was discovered in Belize. This discovery has heightened our concern along the Mexican border and has prompted us to increase our surveillance activities there. To control the spread of BCA within the United States, APHIS has established guidelines for States to use in developing action plans to control this pest. Florida has already developed such a plan and Florida, California, and Texas have established BCA work groups. APHIS is participating in these work groups and has also established a State- Federal-industry BCA task force, which includes members of the various State work groups as well as officials from USDA's Agricultural Research Service and Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service--CSREES. Task force members are currently discussing various research methods, resource availability, and regulatory and control options. APHIS is coordinating the group's activities and assisting ARS and CSREES officials in their research in biocontrol measures to control the pest. Because the BCA has already expanded to such a wide area, it is not amenable to eradication. The spread of this pest can only be stopped or slowed by environmental limitations or through the use of biological control techniques. To examine such techniques, we are continuing to work with the University of Florida on a demonstration project. Through this demonstration, we plan to study the BCA's seasonal dynamics, mortality factors, and alternate hosts. Also, we are introducing and evaluating exotic natural enemy species, and evaluating the impact of population suppression on aphid biology and virus movement. In addition, we are continuing cooperative project surveys in Florida and Texas. In Florida, the natural enemy survey is one component of a cooperative State and Federal survey that also includes sampling for BCA and citrus tristeza virus--CTV--detection. Samples for the Texas survey, which includes both BCA natural enemies and CTV, are being collected during routine visits for fruit fly traps in the Rio Grande valley. In FY 1997, we will treat a 20-acre block of citrus with four promising isolates of insect pathogens and evaluate their ability to kill or control BCA under field conditions. Also, we plan to initiate field efficacy studies in Florida. If the BCA becomes established in commercial citrus production areas in Puerto Rico, we will conduct field efficacy studies there also. Data has been collected on the field biology of BCA, and alternate host plants and laboratory cultures of several local natural enemies have been initiated. Mr. Skeen. What were the findings of the economic evaluation of the brown citrus aphid project? Response. We have arranged for an economist to conduct this evaluation through a cooperative agreement and work is ongoing. However, the project is still in its initial stages and has yet to yield any significant results. APHIS' role, besides funding this agreement, is to collect data. Through this project, we intend to determine the feasibility of reducing the risk posed by CTV by developing effective management strategies for BCA. trichinae pilot certification project Mr. Skeen. The trichinae pilot certification project is a three year project scheduled to end in fiscal year 1998. Give the Committee a status of the project. Response. The initial phase of the trichinae pilot certification project was complete in December 1996 ahead of schedule. This phase involved testing waste fed swine herds in New England and Ohio to determine if waste feeding or some other factor posed a significant risk for trichinae infection. Phase I test results indicated that rodent infestations on the farm, rather than the type of feed, contributed to trichinae infection. APHIS also evaluated a new serological test developed by the Agricultural Research Service in Phase I. This new test will be used in conjunction with the traditional muscle digestion test as part of a herd certification process. Phase II of the trichinae pilot certification project is now underway in Iowa. In this phase APHIS veterinarians are developing ``good production practices'' to use in the herd certification progress. Phase III, which will include setting up the certification program, in scheduled to begin in 1998. bovine leukosis-free herd certification program Mr. Skeen. In fiscal year 1995, APHIS continued to work with industry and the scientific community to develop the framework for a voluntary bovine leukosis-free herd certification program. What is the status of this initiative? Response. In FY 1995, APHIS worked with the industry and scientific community to finalize a protocol for a voluntary bovine leukosis-free herd certification program. The protocol is available to States, interested in establishing their own program. equine infectious anemia program Mr. Skeen. Also in fiscal year 1995, APHIS began facilitating the development of a uniform policy program for States involved in the equine infectious anemia program. A uniform policy program was approved by the U.S. Animal Health Association in fiscal year 1996. Are all States now using this system? Response. Approximately 50 percent of all States have implemented equine infectious anemia--EIA--control programs similar to the gold- standard prototype outlined in the uniform policy program guide. Other States with EIA control programs already in place--Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Texas, and Wisconsin--are re-evaluating and upgrading their existing programs. national rabies management plan Mr. Skeen. The national rabies management plan was supposed to be completed and presented in December at the Rabies in the Americas Conference in Atlanta, Georgia. Did this occur? Describe the plan in further detail for the record. Response. A draft plan for managing rabies in the United States was presented by representatives of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--CDC--to participants at the Rabies in the Americas Conference in Atlanta, Georgia, in December 1996. The plan compiles a set of recommended procedures for managing rabies under various settings and situations. APHIS representatives attended the meeting at the invitation of the CDC, and provided technical input on managing rabies in wildlife populations in the United States. Members of three rabies management working groups, which include diagnosticians and wildlife professionals, will review and provide comments on the plan to CDC. CDC indicated that the management plan will be available for public review later this year. pine shoot beetle Mr. Skeen. ARS scientists in France have collected a pine shoot beetle predator and have been working with APHIS and the Forest Service to import and quarantine the predator. What is the status of this initiative? Response. The PSB predator, Thanasimus formicarius (Coleoptera: Cleridae), is being reared at our Plant Protection Center in Niles, Michigan. We also are providing these predators to the Forest Service for competition studies at Michigan State University. These studies will determine how this imported predator competes with native predators in attacking PSB. We are also working with cooperating researchers to study its biology and improve our rearing techniques before making field releases. Biological control applications such as this would be especially effective in forested areas of regulated States where cultural or chemical methods are not practical or cost effective. We are hopeful that this imported natural enemy for PSB will be more effective than natural enemies native to the U.S. The results from two years of pre-release surveys indicate that native natural enemies are not well suited to attack the PSB. emergency animal disease eradication organizations Mr. Skeen. Where are the four regional emergency animal disease eradication organizations that respond to foreign animal disease outbreaks in livestock and poultry populations located? Response. APHIS has combined the four Regional Emergency Animal Disease Eradication Organizations--READEO's--into two READEO's representing the Eastern and Western Regions. The READEO's are not located in any particular State. Rather, they consist of personnel throughout each region that would come together in the case of an animal disease emergency. Personnel assigned to READEO's have regular field and staff assignments throughout the United States. In the event of an animal disease emergency, the Eastern READEO is responsible for the State of Minnesota and all States east of the Mississippi and the Western READEO is responsible for all States west of the Mississippi (excluding Minnesota). regulatory enforcement Mr. Skeen. How many animal and plant health regulatory enforcement violation cases are pending at the agency? Response. As of mid-March 1997, the number is 1,195. biotechnology--nmral Mr. Skeen. The National Monitoring and Residue Analysis Laboratory performs tests of various food products for pesticide residues under contract with requesting agencies. Provide a list of all pesticide residue testing the Lab conducted, who the contracting agency was, and the cost of the contract for fiscal years 1995, 1996, and to date in 1997. Response. In all 3 years, the National Monitoring and Residue Analysis Laboratory--NMRAL--contracted with the Agricultural Marketing Service--AMS, the Consolidated Farm Services Agency--CFSA, formerly the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service--ASCS, and the Boll Weevil Foundation (Southeast and Southwest). In FY 1995, NMRAL contracted with AMS to analyze nine commodities for dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, Benomyl, and Thiabendazole--TBZ--at a cost of approximately $575,000. NMRAL also contracted with AMS to analyze soybeans for seven herbicides at a cost of $12,000. In addition, NMRAL contracted with CFSA to analyze tobacco for hydrocarbons at a cost of $86,000. The Boll Weevil Foundation paid NMRAL $133,000 to analyze environmental samples for insecticides used in our boll weevil eradication program. In FY 1996, NMRAL contracted with AMS to analyze peaches and grapes for Benomyl, TBZ, and Vendex at a cost of approximately $480,000. NMRAL alsocontracted with AMS to analyze soybeans for seven herbicides at a cost of $12,000. In addition, NMRAL contracted with CFSA to analyze tobacco for hydrocarbons at a cost of $8,000. The Boll Weevil Foundations paid NMRAL $61,000 to analyze environmental samples for insecticides used in our boll weevil eradication program. So far in FY 1997, NMRAL has contracted with AMS to analyze five commodities for Benomyl, TBZ, and Vendex at a cost of approximately $455,000. Also NMRAL contracted with AMS to analyze soybeans for 11 herbicides at a cost of $12,000. The Boll Weevil Foundation paid NMRAL $11,000 to analyze environmental samples for insecticides used in our boll weevil eradication program. non-federal funds Mr. Skeen. Provide a breakout of the other agriculture appropriations and other non-Federal funds for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998. [The information follows:] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1996 1997 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Obligations under other USDA appropriations: Agricultural Marketing Service: For administrative support.............. $5,285,593 $5,786,000 $5,768,000 For technical support. 482,850 0 0 Agricultural Research Service: for administrative support... 74,953 50,000 50,000 Food Safety and Inspection Service: for technical assistance............... 620,216 12,000 12,000 Foreign Agricultural Service: For technical support. 142,497 8,000 8,000 For employee services training............. 10,403 8,000 8,000 Forest Service: for technical support........ 309,585 200,000 200,000 Grain, Inspection, and Packers and Stockyards Administration: for administrative support... 1,405,841 1,406,000 1,406,000 National Agricultural Statistics Service: for administrative support... 557 0 0 Natural Resources Conservation Service: For administrative support.............. 33,000 33,000 33,000 For residue testing... 7,158 0 0 Office of the Secretary: Support of the FISVIS initiative........... 166,753 66,000 0 Support of the MAPS initiative........... 141,086 150,000 150,000 Support of the Service Center Implementation Team..................... 19,938 56,000 ............ ----------------------------------------- Total, Other Agriculture Appropriations......... 8,700,430 7,757,000 7,635,000 ========================================= Non-Federal Funds: AQI receipts (greater than $100 million............. ............ 13,079,566 \1\ 41,000,0 00 Funds from States and local entities from animal damage control activities............... 11,174,907 11,733,652 12,320,335 Illegally imported birds.. 91,281 80,000 80,000 Import-Export user fees... 9,077,644 10,036,000 10,036,000 Phytosanitary certificate user fees................ 3,570,050 4,600,258 4,692,263 Reimbursable overtime..... 12,248,358 12,655,722 13,113,950 Truman Animal Import Center................... 1,229,389 1,100,000 1,000,000 Veterinary diagnostic user fees..................... 1,630,032 1,500,000 1,500,000 Miscellaneous contributed funds.................... 7,965,742 6,998,000 6,998,000 ----------------------------------------- Total, Non-Federal Funds 46,987,403 61,783,198 90,940,548 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Funds up to $100 million of receipts are included in discretionary appropriations. pay cost increases/employment cost reductions Mr. Skeen. Provide a breakout, by line item, of pay costs increases and employment cost reductions proposed in 1998. [The information follows:] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pay cost Employment cost Line item increases reductions ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pest and Disease Exclusion: AQI User Fees................. $446 -$1,219 AQI Appropriated.............. 396 -289 Cattle Ticks.................. 63 -173 Foot and Mouth Disease........ 3 -191 Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection.................... 129 -320 Import/Export Trade........... 55 -87 International Programs........ 30 -43 Screwworm..................... 51 -429 Tropical Bont Tick............ 2 -10 Plant and Animal Health Monitoring: Animal Health Monitoring and Surv......................... 415 -682 Animal Health Regulatory Enforce...................... 72 -205 Pest Detection................ 30 0 Pest and Disease Management: ADC Operations................ 302 -306 Aquaculture................... 4 -8 Biocontrol.................... 63 -78 Boll Weevil................... 46 -120 Brucellosis................... 99 -243 Golden Nematode............... 5 -14 Gypsy Moth.................... 60 -61 Imported Fire Ant............. 0 0 Misc. Plant Pests and Diseases 17 0 Noxious Weeds................. 2 0 Pink Bollworn................. 6 -27 Pseudorabies.................. 18 -55 Scrapie....................... 14 -50 Sweet Potato Whitefly......... 12 -23 Tuberculosis.................. 36 -64 Witchweed..................... 7 -31 Animal Care: Animal Welfare................ 107 -117 Horse Protection.............. 4 -11 Scientific and Technical Services: ADC Methods Development....... 76 -129 Biotechnology/Environmental Prot......................... 60 -53 Integrated Systems Acquisition Project...................... 0 0 Plant Methods Biocontrol Labs. 85 -31 Veterinary Biologics.......... 116 -131 Veterinary Diagnostics........ 117 -218 Contingency Fund.............. 5 -62 ------------------------------------- Total, APHIS................ 2,953 -5,480 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ legislative proposals Mr. Skeen. When do you plan to submit your legislative proposals to Congress? Response. The Department will submit APHIS' legislative proposal as soon as it is drafted, and USDA/OMB review is complete which we expect to be soon. national center for import/export Mr. Skeen. Where is the National Center for Import-Export located? Response. The National Center for Import and Export--NCIE--is located at APHIS' headquarters in Riverdale, Maryland. NCIE operations consist primarily of providing information, advising, and consulting with industry groups, the public and other governments; conducting risk assessments; certifying export products; and developing and implementing standards, regulations, and policies. This work prevents animal disease introduction by ensuring that imported animals or animals products are free of disease and ensures that export animals offered by the United States meet the criteria of the importing country. international programs Mr. Skeen. A 1996 study estimated that the total value of U.S. agricultural trade which is constrained by technical barriers is approximately $4.9 billion. What is the definition of a technical barrier. Did these barriers exist prior to GATT and NAFTA legislation? Response. Technical barriers are non-tariff restrictions to trade. Sanitary and phytosanitary measures designed to protect animal and plant health are examples of technical barriers. Questionable barriers can include policies that are not supported by sound science, are more trade restrictive or protectionist than necessary, or violate one of the many principles in the GATT/SPS agreement. To harmonize sanitary and phytosanitary measures to the greatest extent possible, WTO member countries are encouraged to base their measures on international standards, guidelines, and recommendations where they exist. However, WTO members may maintain or introduce measures which result in higher standards if there is scientific justification or as a consequence of consistent risk decisions based on an appropriate risk assessment. The WTO expects that members would accept the sanitary and phytosanitary measures of others as equivalent if the exporting country demonstrates to the importing country that its measurers achieve the importing country's appropriate level of health protection. Yes, these barriers did exist prior to GATT and NAFTA legislation. The GATT legislation extends and clarifies the Agreement on Technical Barriers toTrade reached in the Tokyo Round in 1979. This agreement concerns the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures. The agreement recognizes that governments have the right to use sanitary and phytosanitary measures but that they should be applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health and should not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between member countries where identical or similar conditions prevail. The agreement also describes procedures and criteria for risk assessments and the determination of appropriate levels of sanitary or phytosanitary protection. foreign animal diseases Mr. Skeen. Please explain why the total number of foreign animal disease investigations increases from 270 in fiscal year 1997 to 420 in fiscal year 1998. Response. There were 270 suspected foreign animal disease--FAD-- investigations in FY 1995 and 420 such investigations in FY 1996. There is no single cause for the increase in the number of suspected FAD investigations during this period. However, some contributing factors include APHIS' increased surveillance activities undertaken to enhance emergency preparedness throughout the United States and its territories, and heightened awareness among producers, private veterinarians, and the public resulting from the outbreak of Vesicular Stomatitis in the Western States and BSE in the United Kingdom. Mr. Skeen. How many training courses were provided in fiscal year 1996 to increase foreign animal disease awareness, where were they conducted, what was the number in attendance, and what did it cost? Response. APHIS conducted three training courses in fiscal year 1996 to increase foreign animal disease awareness. Information on these courses follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ No. in Location attendance Cost ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Washington, DC, with various down link sites around the U.S................... 309 $37,000 University of Georgia, Georgia.......... 25 5,000 Plum Island-Orient Point, New York...... 26 5,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ electronic poultry export certification Mr. Skeen. Full implementation of electronic poultry export certification will begin in fiscal year 1997 upon Canada's final legal approval. What is the status of this issue? Response. Canada's regulations have recently changed to allow acceptance of electronic certification. We are working with the Canadians to develop operating procedures and will conduct a short pilot to test procedures in spring 1997. We anticipate full implementation of electronic poultry export certification in fall 1997. Mr. Skeen. What were the findings of a collaborative monthly feedlot cattle monitoring to report the trends in death loss and disease? Response. Monthly mortality in monitored feedlots continues to show seasonal trends with total losses remain within expected limits based on historical data. The data indicates that there have been no outbreaks of disease associated with high mortality or long-term decreasing or increasing mortality trends. The report also indicates no shifts in respiratory, digestive, and other disease patterns. national poultry improvement plan Mr. Skeen. The ostrich industry joined the National Poultry Improvement Plan in June 1996. What is the level of ostrich participation in the program? Response. APHIS estimates that approximately 50 percent of the ostrich breeders in the United States will participate in the National Poultry Improvement Plan in FY 1997. investigative and enforcement services Mr. Skeen. APHIS conducted 1,150 investigations involving animal health programs resulting in 581 violation cases. This is a 50 percent violation rate. How do you explain this? Response. Our experience has been that roughly half of the animal health cases investigated in a typical year result in formal administrative action. For example, the corresponding figures for FY 1995 were 923 animal health investigations, and 582 violation cases. In the other 50 percent of investigations--those situations where a formal case does not result--may be due to one of several factors. Upon investigation, APHIS may find that (1) no violation occurred, (2) we were not able to obtain sufficient evidence that a violation occurred, or (3) upon investigation, the program official determined that although a violation may have occurred, it is not in the best interest of APHIS to pursue formal action. Also, APHIS conducts some investigations for traceback and/or fact finding purposes rather than enforcement. For example, during the recent outbreak of KB we conducted an investigation to obtain information on grain shipment pathways. Mr. Skeen. What is done once a violation is identified? Response. When a program identifies a possible violation, the responsible APHIS program official determines a course of action. One option frequently used is the issuance of a warning notice. A second option is for the program to request that APHIS' Investigative and Enforcement Services unit (formerly Regulatory Enforcement) conduct a formal investigation. Once an investigation is completed, the results are forwarded to the program official who determines what type of action is warranted and requests further actionfrom Investigative and Enforcement Services. Options include: (1) no action; (2) warning notice; (3) stipulation (Agency issues a civil penalty judgment); (4) work with the Office of General Counsel to issue a formal complaint, which can result in a fine, suspension, or disqualification, or (5) in the most serious instances, referral of the case to the U.S. Attorney's office for criminal prosecution. aquaculture Mr. Skeen. APHIS awarded a contract to a private consultant to provide advisory aquaculture assistance for the further development of a national aquaculture program. What is the cost of this contract and when will you have some results? Response. The cost of the contract is $32,465. The final report is due in April 1997. pine shoot beetle Mr. Skeen. When do you expect to release the pine shoot beetle predator that is being reared at the Niles, Michigan Plant Protection Center? Response. We expect to release the Thanasimus formicarius (Coleoptera:Cleridae) in late FY 1998. Recently, several States have requested additional information on the predator's biology and its ability compete with native natural enemies. To address these concerns, we are working with cooperating researchers to study the predator's biology and improve our rearing techniques before making field releases. mission biological control center Mr. Skeen. What are the results of a study being conducted to compare the efficacy of females produced in vitro at the Mission Biological Control Center and those produced in vitro on artificial media developed by ARS? Response. The release study to which you are referring was conducted in FY 1996 to compare the efficacy of females produced in vivo at Mission and those produced in vitro on artificial media developed by ARS. The target organism was the Catolaccus grandis, which is being used as a biological control agent against the boll weevil in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. As a result of this study, we have determined that the females that ARS has produced in-vitro are just as efficacious as the ones we have produced in-vivo. Therefore, we are now using the in-vitro process since it is more cost-efficient. Currently, the project encompasses 100 acres and involves a partnership among APHIS, ARS, Texas A&M, Sanidad Vegital, and cotton growers. In FY 1998, the project will expend to 1,000 acres using in-vitro process. golden nematode Mr. Skeen. In fiscal year 1996, a panel representing APHIS, the National Plant Board, potato growers, and ARS conducted an extensive review of the golden nematode program and made a number of recommendations. Provide a list of these recommendations and tell the Committee the status of each. Response. The panel made 15 recommendations. We are establishing an implementation team to review the panel's report, determine which recommendations can be implemented, establish a timetable for implementation, and address the operational details associated with implementation. The recommendations follow: (1) the feasibility of eradication be tested in accordance with the parameters presented by the Panel. (2) ARS and Cornell University continue their research and development work. (3) the program should explore the possibility of developing other effective control methodologies. (4) the USDA or the New York State Department of Agriculture-- NYSDA--work with potato growers to obtain a special local needs or general registration for Basamid. (5) the national golden nematode detection surveys now in progress be completed. (6) the program continue to intensely manage the golden nematode in New York State. (7) the joint USDA/NYSDA/Cornell University continue to conduct the golden nematode management program. (8) that the nematode management program be restructured to reduce workload. (9) the federal-domestic quarantine be revised, (10) the NYSDA evaluate the New York State parallel quarantine. (11) ARS and Cornell University continue current research efforts. (12) funds now provided to the ARS/Cornell University effort from APHIS and NYSDA appropriations be redirected to the regulatory and management program. (13) various potato commissions be consulted in the development of a research initiative to identify other detection and control methods. (14) federal funding for USDA regulatory and management activities continue. (15) fees be established for the licensing that would be required by the proposed New York State Potato Production Protection Act if the NYSDA adopts the Panel's recommendation for a new regulatory program. livestock conservation initiative Mr. Skeen. What is the Livestock Conservation Initiative? Response. Established in 1916, the Livestock Conservation Institute--LCI--is a nonprofit, consensus building organization with members from every segment of the food animal industry. The LCI's mission is to unify organizations, allied industries, government agencies, researchers, and individuals interested in cooperatively addressing animal health, animal care, and food safety issues affecting animal agriculture in North America. The organization has been involved in promoting a series of new programs and policies that reflect the changing needs of the food animal industry. Priority issues addressed by the LCI include food safety assurance, livestock identification, emerging disease preparedness, preventative herd/flock health, livestock care and handling, disease eradication, animal health and trade, and livestock industry ethics. national wildlife research center Mr. Skeen. Specifically how has the National Wildlife Research Center reduced the original EPA re-registration data call for chemicals to support APHIS's activities from 433 studies at $13.6 million to 258 studies at $3.0 million? Response. National Wildlife Research Center--NWRC--personnel have assembled and coordinated the operations of three data-gathering consortia. This allowed pooling the resources of Federal and State Agencies and private industry to collect and distribute more than $1 million for meeting data needs. In addition, NWRC scientists, on behalf of the consortia, directly negotiated with EPA scientists and administrators to reduce data requirements. NWRC also provided technical resources to the consortia, prepared technical data waiver requests, and negotiated with EPA and consortia members to revise labeling to further reduce requirements. The APHIS re-registration process has been completed for five of the seven APHIS-supported pesticides, and the remaining two should be re-registered by the end of FY 1998. Mr. Skeen. The Institute for International Cooperation in Animal Biologics is a cooperative effort between APHIS, ARS, and Iowa State University. Where is this Institute located? What is its mission and accomplishments to date? Provide a table that shows how much each entity contributes to its operation. Response. The Institute for International Cooperation in Animal Biologics--IICAB--which was established in October 1995, is based in Ames, Iowa. The IICAB's mission is to work cooperatively with others around the world who share the goal of improving animal health and productivity through the effective use of biologics to control animal disease. During its first year of operations, the IICAB accomplished three major projects: organizing and hosting the Veterinary Biologics Training Program, and coordinating and facilitating two international meetings. The Veterinary Biologics Training Program was held in Ames, Iowa, from May 28 to June 28, 1996. The program provided training to 105 U.S. and 5 foreign industry personnel and 9 international government regulatory personnel. The training was conducted by scientists and regulatory personnel from the USDA, the Iowa State University, and other universities. In October 1996, the IICAB organized the ``Harmonization of Veterinary Biologics in the Americas'' meeting in Brazil. Forty-three individuals from 13 countries participated in the meeting. Countries represented at the meeting included Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, France, Mexico, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and the United States. In September 1996, the IICAB and the National Agricultural University of Ukraine--NAUU--sponsored the ``Biologics and Pharmaceuticals for Improved Animal Production in Ukraine'' meeting in Kiev. The World Bank provided $20,000 in funding for the meeting. Over 200 people attended the meeting including representatives from international veterinary pharmaceutical and biologics companies, Ukrainian regulatory and industry personnel, and faculty and students from the NAUU. THE INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN ANIMAL BIOLOGICS CONTRIBUTIONS BY ORGANIZATION ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FY 1996 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Iowa State University......................... $100,000 $100,000 APHIS......................................... 100,000 100,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1996 olympics Mr. Skeen. Did the Olympic Committee reimburse the agency for any costs associated with the 1996 Summer Olympic Games? Response. No they did not. The FY 1996 Appropriations Act provided that of the funds provided, the Secretary could provide for the funding of all fees or charges related to the cost of providing import, entry, diagnostic and quarantine services in connection with the 1996 Olympics. As a result, APHIS provided these services, and funded the associated $428,623 in related costs from the contingency fund. unobligated balance/buildings and facilities Mr. Skeen. Provide a detailed breakout of the unobligated balance of $29.6 million that was available at the end of fiscal year 1996. [The information follows:] Project: Amount ($000) National Wildlife Research Center......................... 444 Phase I National Plant Germplasm Quarantine Center........ 10,376 Phase II National Plant Germplasm Quarantine Center....... 10,376 Screwworm Master Plan..................................... 500 Methods Development Facility.............................. 672 Predator Research Building................................ 59 Basic Buildings and Facilities............................ 6,134 -------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total................................................... 29,561 Mr. Skeen. How do you explain such a large carryover of funds? Response. Of the unobligated balance, approximately $22 million is earmarked for the National Plant Germplasm Quarantine Center--NPGQC--in Beltsville, Maryland. The permitting process for the NPQC has taken more time to complete than was originally anticipated. We are optimistic that the final permits will be approved sometime late this spring. When that occurs, weanticipate issuing invitations to bid for the construction of the facility. We plan to have the construction contract awarded no later than September 30, 1997. DWRC Master Plan--The FY 1996 carryover was obligated in January 1997. Funds were used to complete work at the ARB. Screwworm Master Plan--The Plan should be initiated in FY 1998. After we complete privatization studies, the work associated with the architectural and engineering studies will begin. Methods Development Facility--There is $672,000 available for facility improvements at our Mission, Texas, and Phoenix, Arizona, sites. We anticipate obligating these funds during the fourth quarter of FY 1997. Predator Research Building--The balance is being held for any remaining construction improvements that may be required. Basic buildings and facilities--The balance of $6,134,000 accounts for about 20 percent of the unobligated balance. At the end of FY 1998, we anticipate an unobligated balance of less than $5 million. Mr. Skeen. The Beef '97 survey plans to take a snapshot of animal disease occurrence compared to 1993 data. What are the results of this survey and comparison? Response. The first phase of data collection for the Beef '97 survey was completed in February 1997. This data is currently being analyzed for a report due in April 1997. Additional data collection is also underway. A trend report, which will include a comparison of 1993 and 1997 data, is scheduled for completion in fall 1997. saltcedar tree Mr. Skeen. Researchers in Salt Lake City were proposing to release two foreign insects in arid regions in an attempt to control the saltcedar tree. These two insects, one from Israel and one from China, are thought to feed only on saltcedar. What are the results of the environmental assessment of this proposal and its status? Response. ARS plans to release an insect agent Trabutina mannipara for the biological control of the saltcedar tree in the summer of 1997. At that point, ARS will submit a biological assessment to the FWS. Once this biological assessment is submitted, we can complete an environmental assessment--EA--based in part on the FWS opinion, and conclude whether releases of this agent will have no significant adverse environmental impacts. If we can make a ``finding of no significant impact''--FONSI--we plan to publish a notice in the Federal Register to make our EA and the FONSI available for public comment. These comments will then be included in the final draft of our EA. Based on these comments, a final decision will be made on whether or not to issue a permit. imported fire ant Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the plan of a researcher in Florida to release a South American fly that eats the heads of fire ants? Response. This plan is still in the research stage and we are several years away from any possible release of this parasitic Brazilian fly (Pseudacteon) into the field. Currently, an ARS scientist is conducting this research in Gainesville, Florida. Even though the research established that these flies attack IFA, we are unsure whether or not they attack other ants that may compete with the IFA. If the ARS research determines that this parasite would be a feasible and effective natural enemy for the IFA, this would represent a significant development in IFA control in the United States. At this point, IFA lacks natural enemies and there are no effective, efficient, and environmentally acceptable control agents available for large scale application on agricultural land. asian longhorned beetle Mr. Skeen. I read where USDA is planning to contribute $500,000 to efforts in New York to replace trees being removed and destroyed because of the Asian longhorned beetle. What is the status of this initiative? Where will this funding come from? Response. We have contributed $450,000 through a cooperative agreement to the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets for tree removal. Tree removal is nearing completion and the program will have removed all known infected trees by April 1, 1997. In doing so, we will be able to eliminatethe next generation of Asian Longhorned Beetle where it is known to occur. Our role in tree removal involves oversight to assure that the trees are properly handled, processed, and disposed. This funding came from our Contingency Fund. bovine spongiform encephalopathy Mr. Skeen. Describe in detail how you would respond if a case of BSE were detected in the U.S. Response. APHIS and FSIS are jointly preparing a BSE Emergency Response Plan which will provide a step by step plan of action in the event that a case of BSE is detected in the United States. The BSE Response Plan is scheduled for final approval in April 1997. The plan outlines appropriate procedures if there is a presumptive diagnosis of BSE either at the slaughter plant, on a farm or by the National Veterinary Service Laboratories. It covers the following topics: (1) composition of a response team, (2) briefing and notification plans, (3) herd and product control plans, (4) sample documents which will routinely be updated, (5) protocol to confirm diagnosis, (6) timeliness, (7) a master checklist of actions, (8) depopulation options, and (9) a list of state quarantine authorities. Since laboratory confirmation of BSE takes several days, the plan recommends that numerous activities take place during this time period. For example, after the NVSL determines there are significant histological changes in a brain sample, the sample should be examined using the immunohistochemical or western blotting technique. If this is positive the sample should be flown to England for final confirmation. During this interval, two teams should be assembled. One team would perform field activities including quarantining the herd, tracing movement of progeny, products, and other sales, and investigating the suspected source of infection. these field actions are detailed in the Herd Control section of the BSE Response Plan. If necessary, a Regional Emergency Animal Disease Eradication Organization--READEO--may be established. The other team, the BSE Response Team, would handle the communication aspects of the outbreak. Mr. Skeen. A cheetah in a French zoo, which came from Britain, has been put down because it was suffering from BSE. This is the fifth known case of BSE in cheetah since 1992. How did the cheetah's get BSE? Does this provide support for the theory that BSE can cross species? Response. The source of the cheetah's infection is still unclear. The theory is that the cheetah developed Feline Spongiform Encephalopathy--FSE--from eating food contaminated with BSE. This theory has been supported by work conducted in the Great Britain which indicates that BSE strains in cattle and FSE strains are the same. Both strains are different, however, from any known strains of scrapie in sheep. government performance and results act Mr. Skeen. GPRA, known as the Results Act, requires each executive agency to issue, no later than September 30, 1997, a strategic plan covering at least five years. In addition to a mission statement grounded in legislative requirements, the plans are to contain general goals and objectives that are expected to be outcome or results oriented (such as to improve literacy) as opposed to output or activity oriented (such as to increase the number of education grants issued). (a) What progress is the agency making in developing its strategic plan, including defining its mission and establishing appropriate goals? Response. APHIS has drafted a Strategic Plan, currently being reviewed by Department officials. Included in the plan are our mission and vision statements and our goals. (b) Has the agency identified conflicting goals for any of its program efforts? If so what are the performance consequences of these conflicting goals and what actions--including seeking legislative changes--is the agency making to address these conflicts? Response. At this stage, we have not identified conflicting goals for any of our programs. Mr. Skeen. Stategic plans must be based on realistic assessments of the resources available to the agency to accomplish its goals. As you are developing your strategic plan, how are you taking into account projected resources that likely will be available--especially as we move to a balanced budget? Response. The APHIS planning process is closely integrated with budget development, through a process we call multi-year program planning and budgeting. In this process, we develop program goals at a reduced level, at a current level, and at a slightly increased level. These funding levels allow us to develop a realistic set of goals based on varying resource levels, and to make adjustments once funding is available. (b) What assumptions are you making? Response. Under the balanced budget environment, budget increases are unlikely. Given the continued increases in the international movement of people and cargo, we are certain that we will need to maintain current funding levels and programs to accomplish our mission of protecting American agriculture and facilitating the trade of agricultural products. There may be a shift of resources to meet these needs. (c) How are you ensuring that your goals are realistic in light of expected resources? Response. APHIS has been involved in risk assessment as a means of protecting American agriculture. Because today's agriculture is driven by competition in the global marketplace, we must protect U.S. export markets. Therefore, APHIS activities are much more focused on pests and diseases that present the greatest risk to exports. To ensure that our goals are accomplished with the resources available, APHIS forms alliances--with international organizations, other federal agencies, State departments of agriculture, universities, and industry organizations. For example, our first goal is to protect U.S. agriculture from the introduction of foreign pests and diseases. With millions of people bringing in personal belongings from foreign countries which have economicallyimportant agricultural pests and diseases, it is difficult to safeguard against every pest that could hurt U.S. agricultural production. APHIS scientists have partnered with other scientists to assess the risk of various pests and diseases entering the country. At the same time, we partner with U.S. Customs at many border ports to help in intercepting high risk agricultural material. Developing these cooperative alliances allows us to use the limited resources most effectively. Mr. Skeen. For Congress, the heart of the Results Act is the statutory link between agency plans, budget requests, and the reporting of results. Starting with fiscal year 1999, agencies are to develop annual performance plans that define performance goals and the measures that will be used to assess progress over the coming year. These annual goals are to measure agency progress toward meeting strategic goals and are to be based on the program activities as set forth in the President's budget. (a) What progress have you made in establishing clear and direct linkages between the general goals in your strategic plan and the goals contained in your annual performance plans? OMB expressed concern last year that most agencies had not made sufficient progress in this critical area. Response. For our pest and disease exclusion programs, we have made good progress in linking annual goals to our general strategic goals. For example, our general goal is to protect U.S. agriculture from the introduction or foreign pests and diseases, while at the same time ensuring access to foreign markets for U.S. agricultural products with regard to their health status. One of the annual performance goals linked to this general goal is to eradicate screwworm from Nicaragua by the end of 1997. There is a direct linkage in that the farther we push screwworm from the U.S. border, the better our livestock is protected. On the other hand, for some programs, it is more difficult to set annual goals which can be directly linked to our long term general goals. Our agricultural quarantine inspection program is a good example. Every day our inspectors intercept agricultural products with the potential of harboring pests such as Mediterranean fruit flies or diseases such as African swine fever. The probability of any one interception preventing an outbreak of one of these pests or diseases is very difficult to quantify, and therefore it is difficult to set annual interception targets. The AQI program has been testing ways to quantify these kinds of risks, and to set annual risk reduction targets which will be linked to our general protection goal. We have several other programs like AQI, in which the complex biology of the agricultural risk we are dealing with makes quantifiable linkages to our general goals very difficult. (b) More specifically, how are you progressing in linking your strategic and annual performance goals to the program activity structure contained in the President's budget? Response. The program activity structure in the President's budget is basically the same as the general goals in our strategic plan. (c) Do you anticipate the need to change or modify the activity structure to be consistent with the agency's goals? Response. We do not anticipate needing to change the current activity structure to be consistent with the Agency's goals. (d) Overall, what progress has your agency made--and what challenges is it experiencing--defining results-oriented performance measures that will allow the agency and others to determine the extent to which goals are being met? Response. For many pest and disease management programs, results measures were already in place before the GPRA. For example, since the brucellosis Rapid Completion Plan has been in place, we have had a results-oriented goal of eradicating brucellosis from the U.S. by 1998. For other programs with ongoing regulatory or service-oriented goals, it has been difficult for program managers to define results- oriented measures. For our largest program, AQI, we have been testing ways to measure the effectiveness of ports of entry inspection programs as part of the GPRA program measurement pilot. This has led to a set of performance measures which should help everyone understand how well AQI is achieving its goals. We are developing results-oriented measurements for the FY 1999 budget formulation. Mr. Skeen. If applicable, what lessons did the agency learn from its participation in the Results Act pilot phase and how are those lessons being applied to the agency-wide Results Act efforts? Response. Our pilot project in AQI results monitoring yielded several lessons learned, including: Working with another agency can be very complex. (APHIS and U.S. Customs Service carry out joint probability sample surveys at ports of entry to estimate the amount of prohibited material entering the U.S.) The different approaches in the mission and measurement need to be more compatible if collaboration is to succeed. Obtaining useful data can take time. An effective monitoring system requires a long term commitment and involves continual learning. A strong commitment is needed at all levels to continually improve data quality. A year or more of data collection may be required before sufficient information is available to identify all areas potentially needing improved quality. Data must be accurate for the system to be trusted and used. Communication is critical, both in written materials and in personal visits. A strong commitment at all levels is essential in gaining support for the effort. These lessons have been shared across APHIS programs and will be used to further define results management for all programs. (b) What steps is the agency taking to build the capacity (information systems, personnel skills, etc.) necessary to implement the Results Act? Response. The Agency has recognized the need for information systems to support program measurement. Recently, the AQI port information network received the highest priority for our Information Technology Community resources. The random sample surveys performed to monitor AQI results will be part of this port information network. We also provide personnel in APHISprograms advice and guidance on setting measurable goals and planning for results. Training about GPRA is also made available. Mr. Skeen. The Results Act requires agencies to solicit and consider the views of stakeholders as they develop the strategic plans. Stakeholders can include state and local governments, interest groups, the private sector, and the general public, among others. Who do you consider to be your agency's primary stakeholders and how will you incorporate their views into the strategic plans? Response. APHIS has a wide variety of stakeholders, ranging from congressional committees and members, to agricultural industry associations, to State departments of agriculture, to other Federal agencies such as Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Customs Service, to individual farmers and ranchers, to consumers. APHIS has a wide variety of mechanisms which provide feedback about its programs at many levels. For example, our program in Puerto Rico recently carried out a program needs assessment in which Puerto Rican livestock industry representatives were interviewed. These kinds of interactions take place every day throughout the country and the world with many stakeholders. The program views are expressed in these interactions and incorporated into program plans which are reflected in the budget formulation process. These plans form the basis for our strategic plans revisions. Mr. Skeen. For the Results Act to be successful, agencies with similar missions, goals, or strategies, will need to ensure that their efforts are coordinated. What other federal agencies are you working with to ensure that your strategic plan are coordinated? Response. Several other USDA agencies, including the Agricultural Marketing Service, Grain Inspection and Packers and Stockyards Administration, Foreign Agricultural Service--FAS, FSIS, and ARS have shared draft plans. The Chief Financial Officer--CFO--for USDA is coordinating an analysis of cross cutting issues affecting several USDA agencies. The CFO has asked agencies to check other strategic plan drafts to ensure that our efforts complement each other. (b) What steps have you taken to ensure that your efforts complement and do not unnecessarily duplicate other federal efforts? Response. We are working with other agencies within the Marketing and Regulatory Programs umbrella to ensure that our missions, goals, and strategies complement each other and that efforts are not duplicated. In addition, we will work with our sister agencies including FAS, ARS, and FSIS to ensure that our efforts complement each other. Mr. Skeen. The Results Act requires agencies to consult with Congress as they develop their strategic plans. Since these plans are due in September, now is the time for agencies to begin the required consultations. What are your plans for congressional consultations as you develop your strategic plan? Which Committees will you consult with? How will you resolve differing views? Response. All USDA Mission Areas/Agencies have prepared draft Strategic Plans which are currently being reviewed by Department officials and OMB. Upon completion of the review, the Department plans to provide copies of the Strategic Plan (including an overall Departmentwide Executive Summary and the Strategic Plans for individual Mission Areas/Agencies) to relevant Congressional Committees. Thereafter, we will look forward to begin congressional consultation to discuss our Strategic Plan and to solicit input and advice on refinements of the Plan. We plan to provide copies of the Department Strategic Plan to the following Committees/Subcommittee: House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee; House Agriculture Committee; House Education and Work Force Committee; House Government Reform and Oversight Committee; Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee; Senate Agriculture Committee; Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; and Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. Mr. Skeen. In passing the Results Act, Congress sought to fundamentally change the focus of federal management and decision making to be more results-oriented. Organizations that have successfully become results-oriented typically have found that making the transformation envisioned by the Results Act requires significant changes in what they do and how they do it. (a) What changes in program policy, organization structure, program content, and work process has the agency made to become more results- oriented? Response. One of the changes that the agency has made is to participate in the Vanguard Initiative to improve service and enforcement at U.S. ports-of-entry. The Federal Inspection Services-- FIS--including APHIS, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and U.S. Customs Service, have worked to improve and streamline the primary inspection process. This process is the most visible and critical element of passenger inspection and is where we screen passengers and baggage and decide whether to allow entry into the U.S. or conduct more detailed inspections. The FIS named 10 ports-of-entry as pilot sites for testing the passenger processing recommendations. The pilot sites are: Miami International Airport; Houston Intercontinental Airport; Los Angeles International Airport; Boston's Logan International Airport; Nogales, Arizona; San Ysidro, California; Brownsville, Texas; Blaine, Washington; Buffalo, New York; and Champlain, New York. The goal of the pilot is to test and evaluate recommendations aimed at improving FIS' enforcement while at the same time facilitating passenger processing. Our Animal Damage Control programs have conducted two customer service surveys. Both of those surveys revealed a high degree of customer satisfaction with the work being conducted in these programs. Respondents to the ADC technical assistance survey included homeowners, media, farmers, ranchers, other federal agencies, and others who have asked for technical assistance from the program. ADC also surveyed recipients of their direct control program. Survey respondents included recipients of direct control work--farmers, ranchers, airport authorities, and other federal agencies. The results of the surveys have helped ADC strategically position their programs for 5-10 years. Our Animal Care program is conducting a customer satisfaction survey. As of March 17, 1997, we had received 1,700 responses out of a goal of 1,825 responses. More than half of the responses have been entered into a database.The trial data indicated that 57 percent of the respondents rate USDA's Animal Care program as excellent or very good. Respondents to this survey included individuals, licensed dealers, research institutions, universities, and private industry. Survey results will be used to identify measurable results-oriented program goals. In December 1995, a small group of multi-disciplinary employees called the Business Practices Team was formed from various units within APHIS to help service providers to critically examine their business practices and identify strategies for improving service, reducing costs, and enhancing quality. Some of the results of these efforts are worth noting: International agreements processing time has been reduced from an average of 3 years to as low as 42 days; Processing time for tort claims of $2,500 or less has been reduced from 80 work days to 5 days; Billing for ADC services has been reduced from four months to three days. Accounts receivable dropped from $30 million to under $4 million; and, Refund of excess funds for customers of bird quarantines reduced from up to 3 weeks to 72 hours. (b) How are managers held accountable for implementing the Results Act and improving performance? Response. The Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs has negotiated a set of performance goals, developed for our strategic plan. From this program manager will be held accountable for achieving results through the annual performance evaluation process. (c) How is the agency using Results Act performance goals and information to drive daily operations? Response. In programs such as brucellosis eradication and screwworm, managers are focused on using results information. For example, if screwworms are detected in Nicaragua, more sterile screwworm flies are dropped on an area and eventually the screwworm will be eradicated. For other ongoing programs which are more service oriented, such as ADC, results of customer service surveys and other measurement information are used to make decisions about which activities to carry out and how to improve performance. For other ongoing programs, managers are still learning how to use results information to drive program decisions. Animal Damage Control Program, Zero Funding for Arkansas Mr. Dickey. The Animal Damage Control--ADC--program in Arkansas, as I understand it, deals almost exclusively with migratory bird problems. Those are inherently interstate problems, aren't they? It also deals with problems concerning wildlife on federal lands and problems involving federally protected species. Response. Migratory bird problems occur throughout the Central Flyway in the United States. As such, many of the same bird species that cause damage in Arkansas may also cause damage in other States. Because of the magnitude of the problem, many States recognize the need to cooperate with Federal efforts to minimize the damage caused by these migratory birds. Mr. Dickey. Why shouldn't such activities be paid for with federal dollars? Response. Wildlife is a publicly owned resource in the United States. Because both migratory and resident wildlife are regulated by State and Federal Governments, they have the responsibility to maintain healthy, stable populations. Accordingly, when wildlife causes damage, those governments also have an obligation to help manage the damage. The State and Federal Governments involvement in managing wildlife damage ensures that control activities are conducted in a biologically and environmentally sound manner and in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. Mr. Dickey. In Arkansas, non-migratory pest species such as beaver, deer and coyote are controlled by private sector companies and the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. This is not the case in other states where ADC programs charge a fee to help deal with such ``state species.'' Don't Animal Damage Control operations cooperatively financed by such fees compete directly with the private wildlife control industry? Is that appropriate? Why? Response. The ADC program works closely with the pest control industry to ensure that competition with private enterprise does not occur. Where private resources exist, ADC personnel routinely refer people seeking assistance to local pest control or nuisance wildlife operators. APHIS personnel provide technical assistance, training, and instructional sessions in the use of various methods, both lethal and nonlethal to members of the pest control industry. Agency personnel also provide assistance to industry members in obtaining the required migratory bird depredation permits. Additionally, APHIS has developed a training and certification program allowing pest control operators and others access to the avicide Compound DRC-1339 and the tranquilizer Alpha-Chloralose. Formerly, these chemicals were authorized for APHIS use only, but not may be used by the pest control operators under APHIS supervision. The Federal Government, by law, has a responsibility to provide leadership and assistance to the States, local governments, and private individuals in managing damage caused by the Nation's wildlife. Federal interest is in protecting threatened and endangered species and human health and safety, as well as wildlife damage control. The Government's involvement in wildlife damage management activities assures that control work is regulated, environmentally sound, and in compliance with all Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Mr. Dickey. Why is it fair to penalize Arkansas because we deal with our local pest species through private sector companies and through our state game and fish commission? Response. In an attempt to make the cooperative partnership more equitable, APHIS is proposing to eliminate federal contributions toward efforts in which the cooperators or program beneficiaries are providing little or no funding, and to reduce federal contributions where cooperators are providing less than APHIS. The purpose of this proposal is to enhance the value of federal dollars invested and therefore the results of program efforts, by investing federal funds where cooperative funds are also committed. There is no intention on the part of APHIS to penalize States. On the contrary, APHIS anticipates that this approach would result in increased cooperator commitment in several States, and this commitment would provide a strong basis for requested increases in federal funds for renewed or enhanced efforts when cooperators provide additional program funding in the future. Animal Damage Control Mr. Bonilla. I am concerned to see that the President's budget once again has proposed a severe cut in funding for a program of particular importance in rural communities, the Animal Damage Control--ADC-- program. The President's Budget proposes a $3 million decrease in funding for this program. It's true that ADC is an important program for agricultural producers--direct losses to agriculture from predator damage totaled $461 million in 1996. Without ADC losses would undoubtedly be much higher, but the benefits of ADC go far beyond agricultural producers. ADC also protects air travelers from the problems that can be caused by wildlife interference on runways and in the immediate airspace or airports--635 airports nationwide participate in the ADC program to avoid just these types of problems. From a public health perspective, ADC is one of the leading methods of controlling the spread of rabies which is a particular problem along the border. Rabies is a problem that is not confined to rural areas-- from 1988 to 1972, 1,761 people were treated for rabies in New York. From an environmental perspective, ADC programs help to protect endangered species from predators, while many of the techniques employed by ADC are non-lethal to the targeted species. Finally, ADC is a major tool for combating other kinds of predator problems that have arisen as human development expands in urban areas. For instance, in Los Angeles, a three year old girl was killed by a coyote in her front yard. ADC helps to control threats by wildlife generally as well as particularly dangerous individual animals like the coyote who killed the three year old girl in Los Angeles. What was the reasoning behind decreasing funding for this program? Response. The ADC operations program functions as a partnership between the Federal Government, State, and local cooperators. The proposals is not intended to decrease funding for this important program, but rather to provide a more equitable mix of federal cooperation support, and a more consistent level of support among States. We are therefore limiting federal support to no more than half of a state's current program level, with expectation that states will be willing to pay for at least half of the total benefits they received. In an attempt to make this partnership more equitable, APHIS is proposing to limit federal contributions toward efforts in which the cooperators or program beneficiaries are providing little or no funding, and to reduce federal contributions where cooperators are providing less than APHIS. The return on program investment is inherently much greater where federal funds are at least matched by cooperators, thereby stretching the value of federal dollars. APHIS anticipates that this approach would result in increased cooperator commitment in several States, and this commitment would provide a strong basis for requested increases in federal funds for renewed or enhanced efforts when cooperatives provide additional program funding in the future. Mr. Bonilla. You mention in your justification the disparity between the percentage of ADC costs shared by different states. How will the cut rectify this problem? Response. The current disparity among levels of support is from zero to 94 percent. Requiring a minimum match of 50 percent will reduce the disparity by over half. Mr. Bonilla. I understand that you recently met with representatives from the Texas Oral Rabies Vaccination Program--ORVP-- to discuss the successes the program has experienced in Texas and the potential for this program to serve as a nationwide model in protecting citizens from rabies carried by wildlife. Obviously, this program is very important to my district and has halted the south and west Texas epidemic from spreading to other states. I know that APHIS-Animal Damage Control was an original partner in this initiative. Would your agency be willing to explore a renewed partnership with states to continue this program? Response. In both FY 1994 and FY 1995, APHIS provided Agency contingency funds totaling approximately $1.8 million toward the development of a bait-delivery system for ORVP. APHIS worked with the State of Texas in the aerial distribution of 850,000 oral vaccine/bait units in FY 1995, 2.5 million units in FY 1996, and an additional 2.5 million in early 1997. APHIS anticipates spending approximately $150,000 of federal and cooperative funding for the Texas rabies control efforts in FY 1997. The Agency is very much interested in continued involvement in and support of such rabies control projects, and will continue to provide support in FY 1998. Mr. Bonilla. You acknowledged in regard to Animal Damage Control that some states are contributing to the cost share at a level below the intended 50/50 cost share, while some states are at levels greater than 50 percent of the total costs of ADC. In regard to the states currently contributing at a level greater than 50 percent of the costs of ADC programs, is it your position that the reduction in the total budget of ADC would not affect the amount of federal dollars going to fund ADC programs in those states? In other words are the proposed reductions intended to first bring the amount of ADC expenditures from the Federal Government to no more than 50 percent in any state before the federal ADC contributed share of dollars is affected in the states that are currently paying for at least 50 percent of the costs of ADC? Response. The intention of the proposal is to limit federal funding to no more than 50 percent of the current total program in each State. Federal contributions to states that are currently willing to pay more than 50 percent would not be affected. Mr. Bonilla. Has any thought been given to the effect reduced funding in states that are not currently at the 50 percent cost share level will have on the predator populations in neighboring states that are contributing at the required level? Predators don't pay any attention to state boundaries. Response. Because of varying political boundaries, APHIS may not be able to provide direct control assistance to resource owners in adjacent political jurisdictions nor would personnel be able to deal with the source of a problem that is located away from the site of predation. This proposal establishes a minimum State matching amount. Individual control projects use alternative cost-share formulas a long as State-wide support for all projects is at least 50 percent. APHIS would be able to continue to provide limited technical assistance on a limited basis in areas in which a cooperative program does not exist. karnal bunt Mr. Fazio. I applaud USDA's decision to relieve the southeastern states of any quarantine restrictions related to Karnal bunt. However, it raises questions as to why California is being treated differently. Karnal bunt restrictions should apply to only those fields where bunted wheat kernels are detected. Last year, every field in Imperial County, California and the eastern half of Riverside County, California was tested for Carnal bunt, and no bunted kernels were found in any fields. Why aren't these fields being deregulated immediately? Response. We are drafting an interim rule that could affect the status of all fields which have no association with bunted kernels. Action to deregulate these fields would ensure that all U.S. wheat producers and handlers are treated equitably regarding Karnal bunt-- KB--and that U.S. wheat can remain competitive in global markets. Any new standard for the identification of KB will be consistent with the Department of Agriculture's objective to protect unaffected growers from this fungal disease while removing or minimizing restrictions as much as possible on those who have been affected. Mr. Fazio. Why has a different set of criteria been applied to the southeastern United States than was applied to these areas of California last year? Response. When we originally established regulations for the Imperial and Riverside Counties of California, we had identified spores that we thought to be KB. Since then, however, we have found that the teliospores of a previously unidentified ryegrass smut are, at certain stages, indistinguishable from the teliospores of Tilletia indica, which is the fungus that causes KB. Based on this finding, APHIS has decided that the detection of teliospores alone does not allow us to determine conclusively that KB is present in area or article. Rather, we will require that bunted kernels, which are kernels that display obvious signs of KB, must also be associated with areas or articles found to contain teliospores before we make a positive determination regarding the presence of KB. If we should determine that KB is present in a particular area, we would propose adding that area to the current federal quarantine area that we have determined to be infected. APHIS and the States would continue to take regulatory actions to conduct the full range of containment and control measures that have the least impact on production and do not impede export trade. Mr. Fazio. The harvest season will begin in a few short weeks in areas of California. What is the status of the proposed standard for determining the presence of Karnal bunt, and will it be released in time for California wheat growers? Response. We expect to have these new standards published. 50/50 cost share/cooperative funding Mr. Obey. ADC is a critical partner in Wisconsin's damage control services with Wisconsin farmers and in protecting Wisconsin's natural resources. I understand that the Administrations budget proposes a 50/ 50 cost share ratio for USDA-ADC cooperative programs. Wisconsin has supported such a proposal for some years and has made it a part of its Cooperative agreement goal. However, federal funding has always fallen behind cooperative funding. Currently, the USDA-ADC share of field operations funding is $362,000, or about 35 percent, while the State and County share is $1,011,000 or about 65 percent. Wisconsin strongly supports the proposal to make both parties equal partners whereby USDA-ADC would match cooperator funding and recommends that the cost share consideration focus only on field operations, and not include administrative costs. I would like to know how USDA-ADC plans to implement the 50/50 cost sharing. Response. Under this proposal, APHIS would provide no more than 50 percent of total federal and cooperative program costs in any State. Base on the most current federal/cooperative contribution data available, federal funding would cease in States where the cooperative contribution is little or nothing. However, technical assistance would continue to be available on a limited basis. Mr. Obey. What is the field operations cost share breakdown across both USDA-ADC Western and Eastern Regions? Response. [The information follows:] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eastern Western Region FY Eastern Region FY Western Eastern Region States 1996 Region FY Western Region States 1996 Region FY approp. 1996 coop. approp. 1996 coop. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AL................................... $159,900 $31,963 AK..................... $45,000 $680,459 AR................................... 258,890 .......... AZ..................... 448,799 265,791 CT................................... 9,370 .......... CA..................... 1,414,915 2,264,991 DE................................... 10,580 .......... CO..................... 790,480 240,854 Dist. of Col......................... 4,761 .......... HI..................... 100,000 670,262 FL................................... 151,950 78,743 ID..................... 936,144 411,400 GA................................... 103,800 109,477 KS..................... 75,000 33,804 IL................................... 117,050 326,137 MT..................... 973,500 547,194 IN................................... 96,700 21,513 NE..................... 393,874 332,556 IA................................... 68,960 4,361 NV..................... 814,872 619,852 KY................................... 81,600 126,212 NM..................... 1,242,585 1,098,776 LA................................... 361,600 221,520 ND..................... 772,052 331,948 ME................................... 135,700 45,320 OK..................... 789,852 927,322 MD................................... 90,459 71,885 OR..................... 974,440 724,621 MA................................... 75,897 36,450 SD..................... 300,000 786,136 MI................................... 97,800 28,855 TX..................... 2,290,752 5,564,171 MN................................... 242,500 96 UT..................... 996,992 840,175 MS................................... 567,700 849,499 WA//Guam............... 588,637 2,230,392 MO................................... 103,440 54,063 WY..................... 1,006,781 471,136 NH................................... 175,306 68,549 NJ................................... 109,340 208,182 NY................................... 119,634 115,898 NC................................... 185,850 575,420 OH................................... 148,900 70,000 PA................................... 79,178 .......... RI................................... 8,433 .......... SC................................... 163,611 269,778 TN................................... 244,800 280,701 VT................................... 61,594 39,710 VA................................... 168,400 179,034 WV................................... 89,700 120,582 WI................................... 525,500 951,596 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Eastern Region............... 4,818,903 4,885,544 Total Western Region. 14,954,675 19,041,840 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Obey. How much of field operations are cooperators funding and how much is USDA-ACD funding on a state-by-state basis? Response. The following table contains the amount of federal appropriated funds and cooperator contributed funds allocated by State for FY 1996. These funds are used for efforts such as resolution of wildlife conflicts at airports, the rabies control project in Texas and other human health and safety issues, as well as for the protection of endangered species and public and private property. [The information follows:] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year-- ------------------------------- State 1996 1996 appropriated cooperative ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alabama................................. $159,900 $31,963 Alaska.................................. 45,000 680,459 Arizona................................. 448,799 265,791 Arkansas................................ 258,890 .............. California.............................. 1,414,915 2,264,991 Colorado................................ 790,480 240,854 Connecticut............................. 9,370 .............. Delaware................................ 10,580 .............. District of Columbia.................... 4,761 .............. Florida................................. 151,950 78,743 Georgia................................. 103,800 109,477 Hawaii.................................. 100,000 670,262 Idaho................................... 936,144 411,400 Illinois................................ 117,050 326,137 Indiana................................. 96,700 21,513 Iowa.................................... 68,960 4,361 Kansas.................................. 75,000 33,804 Kentucky................................ 81,600 126,212 Louisiana............................... 361,600 221,520 Maine................................... 135,700 45,320 Maryland................................ 90,459 71,885 Massachusetts........................... 75,897 36,450 Michigan................................ 97,800 28,855 Minnesota............................... 242,500 96 Mississippi............................. 567,700 849,499 Missouri................................ 103,440 54,063 Montana................................. 973,500 547,194 Nebraska................................ 393,874 332,556 Nevada.................................. 814,872 619,852 New Hampshire........................... 175,306 68,549 New Jersey.............................. 109,340 208,182 New Mexico.............................. 1,242,585 1,098,776 New York................................ 119,634 115,898 North Carolina.......................... 185,850 575,420 North Dakota............................ 772,052 331,948 Ohio.................................... 148,900 70,000 Oklahoma................................ 789,852 927,322 Oregon.................................. 974,440 724,621 Pennsylvania............................ 79,178 .............. Rhode Island............................ 8,433 .............. South Carolina.......................... 163,611 269,778 South Dakota............................ 300,000 786,136 Tennessee............................... 244,800 280,701 Texas................................... 2,290,752 5,564,171 Utah.................................... 996,992 840,175 Vermont................................. 61,594 39,710 Virginia................................ 168,400 179,034 Washington/Guam......................... 588,637 2,230,392 West Virginia........................... 89,700 120,582 Wisconsin............................... 525,500 951,596 Wyoming................................. 1,006,781 471,136 ------------------------------- Total............................. 26,746,984 23,145,843 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Obey. Would the proposal for 50/50 cost sharing result in net federal savings or would it require an increased allocation of funds to this program? Response. The intention of the proposed reduction is that the amount of Federal funding contributed toward ADC activities in each State would only be reduced in those States in which the federal contribution exceeds the cooperator contribution. Because Federal contributions to all other States would not be affected by this proposal, the net result would be a decrease in federal funding for the ADC program. We would expect that States would increase their contributions to make up for the reduced Federal funding levels, so that Federal and State shares would each be 50 percent. Mr. Obey. How much is spent on administration at the Washington, Regional and state office level compared with the district (field) level? Response. For FY 1997, a total of $37,934,860 in appropriated funds is for ADC line items, including ADC operations, ADC methods development, and a portion of the aquaculture line item. Of this amount, approximately $4,172,492 is used for Agency and program level administrative and policy support costs at the National level. The ADC Unit also maintains two regional offices for administrative support at the field level. These offices were allocated a total of $1,555,030 in FY 1997. Nearly all activity at the field level is directly program activity related, and any administrative support would be accomplished by the same people, using the same space, equipment, supplies, etc. APHIS does not differentiate between program delivery and administrative costs at the State/field level. Agricultural Marketing Service organic certification Mr. Skeen. Your agency planned to publish a proposed rule for accreditation of certification agents and product and processing standards in support of the Organic Foods Production Act by the summer of 1996. What is the status of this initiative? Response. We anticipate that the proposed rule for national standards for organic products will be published during the late Spring of this year. In addition to standards for production, the national organic program will include provisions for labeling of organic products; certification of organic farms and processing facilities; USDA accreditation of private and State agents who will conduct certification; compliance and enforcement measures; user fees; and criteria for determining the equivalency of imported organic products. Accreditation of private and State agents, and the certification of farms and processing facilities, should begin once the rule is final. Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears of page 115 of last year's hearing record showing how much has been spent each year along with a brief description of what the funding was used for to include fiscal year 1997. [The information follows:] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Activity Year Amount spent ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Developed a charter for the National 1991 None Organic Standards Board, or NOSB, and initiated a process to receive nominations in the event Federal Advisory Committee funds became available for the NOSB. The Department allocated $120,000 to 1992 $120,000 NOSB from the Department's advisory committee account. We arranged three NOSB meetings and 11 meetings of committees of the NOSB following Federal Advisory Committee Act, or FACA procedures. Continued to provide communication to the organic community and encouraged them to work together with the NOSB to assist the program. The Department allocated $45,646 to NOSB 1993 45,646 from the Department's advisory committee account. We provided support for three NOSB meetings and served as liaison with other agencies and the organic community. Provided $500,000 from AMS' Marketing 1995 540,000 Services account to draft regulations, communicate with the organic community on issues and concerns, provide mailings on USDA recommendations, participate in development of international guidelines development under Codex. We also coordinated and implemented the required Technical Advisory Panel reviews of substances under consideration for the national list. The Department allocated $40,000 to NOSB from the Department's advisory committee account, and two meetings were held. Provided $500,000 from AMS' Marketing 1996 533,000 Services account for drafting regulations subsequent to NOSB recommendations for the Program. We participated in a Codex meeting to develop international guidelines for organic production and processing, continued to provide support for the NOSB, and discussed the proposed organic rule with other agencies that may be affected, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration. The Department allocated $33,000 to NOSB from the Department's advisory committee account, and one meeting was held. Provided $490,000 from AMS' Marketing 1997 490,000 Services account. We are completing the drafting of the proposed rule and will publish it for public comment by late spring, 1997. We will review the public comments following the comment period. The Department's advisory committee account was eliminated, no additional funding was allocated for NOSB. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Skeen. Last year you reported to us that there were about 4,050 state and private certified organic producers, but that a substantial number of self-certified organic producers existed. Can you tell us how many self-certified organic producers are out there? Response. We cannot state the exact number of self-certified organic producers in the U.S. because these producers are not accounted for by any regulatory or certifying organization. Based on discussions with an organic farmers marketing association, we estimate there are between 2,000 and 3,000 self-certified producers. Mr. Skeen. How are these producers monitored? Response. These producers would only be monitored if they were located in a State that had regulations on organic production, but which did not require producers to be certified. One such State is California, which requires only that producers register with the State. Mr. Skeen. What impact will the new regulations have on all organic producers? Response. Producers will benefit in many ways from the new regulations. The labeling of organic products will protect producers from competition with fraudulently labeled products. At the present time, the FDA temporarily allows use of the word ``organic'' on labels while the proposed rule is still in draft. Also, FSIS does not currently allow for the use of the word ``organic'' on meat and poultry labels. This will change once the regulation is in place. Producers will also benefit from improved trade, both domestically and internationally. A single national standard of organic production will facilitate the domestic trade of products used as ingredients in processed food. International trade will be facilitated by the development of agreements establishing country to country equivalency of organic standards. Mr. Skeen. Has there been any progress made to get the U.S. added to the list of countries provisionally approved for shipment of organic products to the European Union? Response. No, however, based on discussions with the European Union, we will pursue this matter after the U.S. has a regulation in place. Mr. Skeen. When do you anticipate the National Organic Standards Program to be fully operational and the collection of fees to begin? Response. The final rule will establish a procedure and a time frame for designating private persons and State officials as accredited certifying agents under the program. We anticipate requiring applications to be submitted to AMS within two months following publication of the final rule. We will then begin the process of accrediting certifying agents which, once accredited, will begin the process of certifying producers and processors. As certifying agents become accredited, and producers and processors become certified, it will be possible to begin collecting fees. [Additional information follows:] AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE, NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM FEE COLLECTION SCHEDULE--MAY 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Summer 1997..................... Publication of the .................. Proposed Rule. July 1998....................... Publication of the .................. Final Rule. October 1998.................... Receive Certifier Collect Application along Application Fee with the with each Application Fee. submission. January 1999.................... Publish list of Collect Accredited Administrative Certifiers after Fee from each receipt of the Certifier. Administrative Fee (initial Accreditation). Once the list is Collect Annual published, Certification Fee farmers and from farmers and handlers who wish handlers. to be certified would begin paying an annual fee for Certification Operations. Within 12 months Collect Site of a certifier's Evaluation Fee initial plus travel and Accreditation, a per diem site evaluation expenses. must be performed Collect which will be Verification Fee billed upon from each completion at an Accredited hourly rate plus Certifier. travel and per diem expenses. Once this is completed, the Certifier will pay a fee for verification. January 2000.................... The fee for the Collect Renewal annual renewal of Fee and Accredited Administrative Certifiers would Fee from be received plus Accredited an additional Certifiers. annual administrative fee, 12 months from the Accredited Certifier's verification. After verification Collect Site of the Accredited Evaluate Fee plus Certifier, site travel and per evaluations will diem expenses. be performed at least every three years and will be billed upon completion at an hourly rate plus travel and per diem expenses. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Skeen. Provide a detailed breakout of the $505,000 requested increase to continue implementation of the Organic Certification program. [The information follows:] Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations Increased funding breakout Salaries and Benefits......................................... $325,000 Travel and Transportation..................................... 76,000 Rent, Communications and Utilities............................ 49,000 Printing...................................................... 16,000 Contractual Services.......................................... 0 Supplies...................................................... 12,000 Equipment..................................................... 27,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total increase............................................ 505,000 Mr. Skeen. When do you expect to publish the proposed rule to establish national standards and definitions governing the marketing of agricultural products as organically produced? How long will the comment period be? How long do you anticipate it will take to review all comments received and published a final rule? Response. We anticipate that the proposed rule for national standards for organic products will be published during the late Spring of this year. The comment period for the proposed rule will be a minimum of 90 days. We expect a large number of comments. While the volume of comments will affect the rulemaking process, we are committed to publishing a final rule as quickly as possible. Mr. Skeen. Will the final rule include a fee structure? Response. Yes, the National Organic Program's fee structure will be included in the final rule. Mr. Skeen. How long after the final rule is published do you anticipate it will be before fees are assessed and collected and the program is self-supporting? Response. Certifiers will be assessed fees as they are accredited. Thus, the first step in implementing the final rule will be to accredit, for a fee, the state and private certifiers. Thereafter, producers and processors will be charged fees when they are certified. Since we are uncertain of the number of applicants and their willingness to pay for certification services, we do not know when the organic program will be self-supporting. Mr. Skeen. You plan to monitor state programs' compliance with the national regulations. What is the Federal cost and the number of AMS staff needed to do this? Response. We are not sure of the Federal cost and number of staff that will be needed to monitor the state programs' compliance with the national regulations. Mr. Skeen. You state that the user fees collected will be deposited in Treasury. Does this mean you will need continued funding as part of your appropriations for the programs continuation? Response. Yes, AMS will continue to need appropriated funding for the organic program. Under current statutory authority, we have authority to assess fees, but we do not have authority to keep them. Any fees collected will be deposited in Treasury. Legislation would be required for AMS to retain the fees. pesticide recordkeeping program Mr. Skeen. USDA has a program to ensure that records of Federally restricted use pesticides are maintained by certified pesticide applicators and requires records be surveyed to provide a database on the usage of Federally restricted use pesticides. Through a Memorandum of Understanding, your agency oversees restricted-use pesticides that private certified applicators apply; Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, oversees the commercial applicators; and the National Agricultural Statistics Service, NASS, collects and maintains data on agricultural use of Federally restricted use pesticides. Are the regulations to provide a national standard for restricted use pesticide application records by certified private applicators in place? Response. The agency published the regulations in April, 1993, with an effective date of May 10, 1993. The agency later proposed changes to the regulations in April, 1994, and finalized the regulations with an effective date of August 1, 1995. Mr. Skeen. Provide a list of the states that received Federal funding for pesticide recordkeeping in fiscal year 1996, including how much Federal funding each received and how much state funding was provided. [The information follows:] AMS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS PESTICIDE RECORDKEEPING PROGRAM 1996 FISCAL YEAR FUNDING REQUIREMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Minimum 5% State cooperator State matching Federal funds funding ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Delaware\1\.......................... $5,129 $12,493 2. Florida \1\.......................... 31,607 24,500 3. Idaho................................ 1,500 30,000 4. Illinois \1\......................... 925 17,750 5. Michigan............................. 1,871 37,281 6. Mississippi \1\...................... 3,038 48,080 7. Missouri \1\......................... 2,920 35,120 8. Ohio \1\............................. 2,424 46,061 9. Oklahoma............................. 1,756 35,993 10. Oregon.............................. 1,363 26,709 11. Utah \1\............................ 1,711 32,526 12. West Virginia \1\................... 1,816 34,533 13. Wisconsin \1\....................... 1,419 26,961 ------------------------------- Totals............................ 57,479 407,827 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Indicates states that chose to provide funding in excess of the 5% minimum required match of state funds. Mr. Skeen. Provide a table showing the resources, both dollars and staff, that have been expended on this program since its inception, including fiscal year 1997 estimates. [The information follows:] PESTICIDE RECORDKEEPING [Dollars in thousands] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obligations............................... $1,023 $1,436 $1,273 $1,352 $1,412 $2,556 $2,570 Staff-years............................... 5 8 8 9 9 9 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Skeen. Specifically, how does AMS use the information obtained during NASS pesticide usage surveys in determining the degree of compliance with recordkeeping requirements? Response. NASS provides AMS with a yearly report of the States that were surveyed by NASS for pesticide usage. Among other things, the report indicates the percentage of those applicators surveyed that referred to pesticide records during the survey. AMS uses these figures as an indicator of compliance with the requirement to maintain records by applicators. Mr. Skeen. What is the percentage of compliance with this requirement? What actions are taken to enforce this law? Response. In 1996, AMS conducted approximately 3,300 inspections of private applicator's records. Of those applicators inspected, more than 95 percent had the required records. AMS inspects applicators' records for enforcement of the regulations through a random sampling process. These inspections are conducted either by State inspectors under a cooperative agreement with AMS or by Federal inspectors. The private applicators' restricted use records are checked through personal visits and the requirements are explained in full detail at the time of the visit. Applicators who are found not to have maintained records are given a written warning for non-compliance with the regulations. The applicators are then revisited the next year for a follow-up inspection and check of records. To date, 100 percent of applicators were found to be in compliance in the follow-up inspections. standardization program Mr. Skeen. Please update the table on page 119 of last year's hearing record showing standardization program costs by commodity for fiscal year 1996. [The information follows:] Standardization Program Cost--Fiscal Year 1996 [Dollars in thousands] Commodity graded Standards program Cotton Classing............................................... $1,138 Dairy Grading................................................. 360 F&V Fresh..................................................... 667 F&V Processed................................................. 264 Meat Grading.................................................. 507 Poultry Grading............................................... 246 Domestic Tobacco.............................................. 117 Imported Tobacco.............................................. 51 -------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total................................................... 3,350 Mr. Skeen. What standards are currently being worked on by AMS? Response. AMS recently completed new U.S. Standards for Grades of Florida grapefruit, oranges and tangelos, tangerines, almonds in the shell and shelled almonds. The new U.S. Standards for Grades of apples is currently in the rulemaking process. AMS is currently working on U.S. Grade Standards for canned apples, beets, carrots, pears, sweet and white potatoes, whole kernel corn, frozen okra, field and black- eyed peas, and apple juice from concentrate. AMS is developing a Handbook of Drained Weights and Fill Weights, and will remove these criteria from the U.S. Grade Standards. AMS has petitions for frozen broccoli, corn, corn-on-the-cob, and leafy greens but are not working on them due to changes in food industry priorities. We are currently working on revising the slaughter cattle and feeder cattle grade standards in order to bring them more closely in line with industry marketing practices. Five standards are being revised involving skin-on and skinless whole birds and parts and boneless parts. Two new standards are being developed for boneless, skinless parts and for boneless, skinless size-reduced sliced or diced products. Standards for dry whey, dry whole milk, and burley tobacco are being reviewed. tobacco programs Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 120 of last year's hearing record showing all the funds, both appropriated and user fees, spent on work related to tobacco to include fiscal year 1996 actuals and fiscal year 1997. [The information follows:] TOBACCO FUNDING [Dollars in thousands] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FY 1996 actual 1997 est. 1998 est. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appropriated: Market News........................ 899 965 975 User fee: Domestic tobacco grading........... 12,469 13,600 13,740 Imported tobacco grading........... 2,335 3,700 3,736 Standards.......................... 168 202 204 Market news (printed reports)...... 3 6 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Skeen. The Dairy and Tobacco Adjustment Act of 1983 requires that all tobacco, except cigar and oriental types, imported into the U.S. be inspected. Why are cigars and oriental type tobacco exempted? Response. According to legislative history, imported cigar and oriental types of tobacco were exempted from inspection because they were not marketed through auction warehouses in the U.S. Mr. Skeen. Agriculture Marketing Service held a Burley Tobacco Conference in Lexington, Kentucky in February. What was the purpose of this conference? Response. The Agricultural Marketing Service conducted a Visitors' Tobacco Information course February 20-28, 1997 in Lexington, Kentucky. The purpose of this course, attended by tobacco industry personnel, was to promote a better understanding of USDA grade standards. All costs associated with this course were recovered through fees charged to participants. grading activities Mr. Skeen. Grading activities are performed by both Federal employees and Federally-supervised state employees. Provide a table that shows the total number of grading employees and Federally- supervised state employees for the past five fiscal years. [The information follows:] AMS GRADING ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND FEDERALLY SUPERVISED STATE EMPLOYEES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal years-- -------------------------------------------- 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Federal Employees........................................ 1,830 1,931 2,059 2,050 2,242 Number of federally supervised State employees..................... 5,976 6,010 6,027 6,010 6,027 Cross licensed employees of other Divisions or USDA agencies....... 34 39 17 21 26 -------------------------------------------- Total........................................................ 7,840 7,980 8,103 8,081 8,295 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- fee changes Mr. Skeen. Did any grading fees increase or decrease during fiscal year 1996? What was the amount of the increase or decrease and why? Response. During fiscal year 1996, two AMS programs changed their grading fees. The Dairy grading fee increased by 80 cents to cover employee pay increases. The Cotton classing fee was reduced by 10 cents due to the large crop size and increased efficiency in classing operations. Mr. Skeen. Did any other fees increase or decrease? By how much? Response. In 1996, the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act fee for basic licenses was increased by $150.00 due to increasing salary costs and also to offset the statutory requirement that retailer licenses be phased-out. market news Mr. Skeen. Were any market news reports eliminated or consolidated during fiscal year 1997? Do you have any plans to eliminate or consolidate any market news reports in fiscal year 1998? Response. Yes, there were several reports eliminated or consolidated during fiscal year 1997. The Northern California and Los Angeles Area Egg reports were consolidated into a single California Egg report, and the Southern and Northern California egg inventory reports were consolidated into one report. The Chicago, Detroit, and Ohio Broiler/Fryer Parts reports wereconsolidated into a single Midwest Region Broiler/Fryer Parts report, and the West Mexico Vegetable Report was consolidated into the Western Melon and Vegetable Report. Weekly cattle summary reports were also consolidated. Reports eliminated include livestock auction reports, as well as the Hens Slaughtered in Federal Inspected Plants report for regions where fewer than four plants were reporting. In fiscal year 1998, the Agency plans to consolidate several reports into National level reports, such as the National Potato and Onion Report, or commodity specific reports, such as the Tomato Report. AMS also plans to eliminate or consolidate several reports for sheep and wool, hay, hogs, and cattle. business process reengineering Mr. Skeen. What were the results of the business process reengineering effort that was underway last year? Response. Beginning in October 1995, the Agricultural Marketing Service conducted Business Process Reengineering (BPR) of its commodity purchase programs. The program delivery team, a working group, analyzed the current operations, identified areas of emphasis, and developed recommendations for an executive steering committee. These included recommendations for streamlining the approval process, implementing a management information system, developing a selling kit for vendors interested in doing business with USDA, moving to electronic commerce, improving funds management, and educating customers of AMS services. The steering committee has approved the recommendations, and the program delivery team is implementing a plan to accomplish reengineering goals. Through this effort, we expect to streamline and automate the entire commodity procurement process for improved performance. AMS conducted or begun similar reengineering, or BPR, projects for the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act Program (PACA), Meat Grading and Certification, Marketing Order Administration, and Market News. The PACA program received the 1996 Hammer Award from the National Performance Review for that program's achievements in identifying 17 percent redundancies in its business processes, reducing processing time for formal reparation complaints by 40 percent, reducing errors and improving service with toll-free telephone numbers for customers, and developing an automated system that allows the issuance of licenses one day after receipt of the application. The Meat Grading and Certification program's BPR generated more than 150 new ideas for increasing efficiency and expanding services. The program expects to reduce admnistrative tasks by 75% and increase service by 15%. For marketing order administration, a reengineering model and implementation plan have been developed. The Market News BPR project has developed a model and implementation plan to improve operational areas critical to the business of the program. shell egg surveillance Mr. Skeen. How much was spent to cover the Federal costs and how much was spent to cover the state costs associated with shell egg surveillance in fiscal year 1996? Response. In fiscal year 1996, $568,116 was paid to States to conduct shell egg surveillance inspections within their State. During the same year, $1,852,744 was used to cover the Federal costs for inspections, supervision, and administration of the shell egg surveillance program. center of excellence Mr. Skeen. Were any funds provided to the Center of Excellence in World Food Distribution at Prairie View A&M University in fiscal year 1996? Response. In 1996, AMS did not provide funding toward the Center of Excellence in World Food Distribution project at Prairie View A&M University. national laboratory accreditation program Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the standards your agency has been working on with FDA and FSIS regarding the National Laboratory Accreditation Program? Response. The proposed rules for the National Laboratory Accreditation Program are being reviewed by the Office of General Counsel of USDA for the operation of the program and by the OGC at FDA for the laboratory and related performance standards of the program. After review by each OGC, the proposed rules will be simultaneously published in the Federal Register. field office closings Mr. Skeen. You planned to close six field offices in fiscal year 1996. What is this status of the initiative. Response. We actually closed eleven field offices in fiscal year 1996: a Livestock and Grain Market News office in West Fargo, North Dakota; Poultry Market News Offices in Edison, New Jersey and Glen Ellyn, Illinois; Fruit and Vegetable Market News offices in Presque Isle, Maine, Cincinnati, Ohio, McAllen, Texas, Nogales, Arizona, Inwood, West Virginia, and Rochester, New York;a Meat Grading office in Des Moines, Iowa; and a Milk Market Administrator's office in Columbus, Ohio. Mr. Skeen. Do you have plans to close any offices in fiscal year 1997? Response. We closed a cotton grading office in Harlingen, Texas this fiscal year; we do not plan to close any more offices this year. imported peanuts Mr. Skeen. As a result of NAFTA monitoring requirements, your agency was developing regulations to require that imported peanuts meet certain quality requirements. What is the status of this initiative? Response. A final rule establishing minimum quality requirements and handling procedures for imported peanuts was published in the Federal Register on June 19, 1996. The rule became effective on July 19, 1996. The regulation and procedures are based on the Peanut Marketing Agreement Number 146, that covers domestically produced peanuts. The intent of the import regulation and Agreement Number 146 is to ensure that all peanuts intended for domestic human consumption, whether shelled or in the shell, meet quality and wholesomeness requirements. Imported peanut shipments are required to be sampled and graded by the Federal-State Inspection Service and chemically tested by USDA or approved private labs. The rule also established handling and reporting procedures, consistent with U.S. Customs Service regulations, which should enable AMS to monitor disposition of all lots and to help assure that all import requirements are met. emerging democracies Mr. Skeen. Last year, you provided the Committee with a summary of the work your agency has been doing with several countries to assist them in developing market information programs using funds provided by the Support Eastern European Development Act and Emerging Democracies. Please give us an update. Response. AMS has been working in Kazakhstan, Russian Federation, and Ukraine through Emerging Markets. AMS has been assisting Kazakhstan in the development of a market news information system. All 19 oblasts now have been introduced to the market information system and collection of information has started. AMS has assisted the Russian Federation with the Ministry of Agriculture in establishing a core market information system in 12 oblasts or autonomous republics. The World Bank, as a part of its Agricultural Reform Implementation Support Project, or ARIS, has extended credit financing to Russia to expand the work begun by AMS into a nationwide Market Information System. Once the expansion occurs, AMS will have a limited role in providing U.S.-based training to market specialists from additional oblasts as they are added to the program under ARIS. In Ukraine, AMS has made significant progress in training market information specialists from 5 key oblasts. By the end of fiscal year 1997, each of the offices will be able to exchange market information directly and to disseminate it widely. Mr. Skeen. What is the level of funding you received by the Support Eastern European Development Act? Where does this funding come from? Response. AMS did not receive any funding from the Support Eastern European Development Act in 1996. However, we did receive $1,050,775 from the Foreign Agricultural Service for Emerging Democracies activities. wholesale market development Mr. Skeen. For the record, please provide the Committee with a listing and status of all Wholesale Market Development projects underway in fiscal year 1996 and to date in fiscal year 1997. [The information follows:] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Projects Status ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chicago, IL, Randolf and Fulton Completed--FY 1997. Streets Market Study. Maine, Identifying Specific Marketing Published--FY 1997. Facility Requirements. Atlanta, GA (market modernization).... Underway. Jackson, MS, New retail Produce Sales Completed--FY 1996 Building. Computer Simulation of Market Underway. Operations. Benton Harbor, MI, Facility Design Underway. Study. Thomasville, GA, Assembly Market Study Published--FY 1997. Asheville, NC, Urban Market Project... Underway. Columbus, OH, Urban Market Project.... Published--FY 1997. Reading, Pennsylvania Urban Market Completed--FY 1997. Project. An Economic Analysis for Establishing Underway. Shipping Point Marketing Facilities in Southwestern Virginia. Los Angeles, CA, Floral Market Study.. Published--FY 1997. Mid-Hudson Valley, NY, Regional Published--FY 1997. Marketing Study. Northern Ohio Food Terminal Wholesale Underway. Market Expansion Master Plan Study. Assessment of Delaware Direct Market Completed--FY 1997. Operations Customers Needs and Opinion. Sea Islands Alternative Market Underway. Development Study, Sea Islands. Montgomery State Farmers' Market Completed--FY 1997. Study, Montgomery, AL. Boston Public Market Initiative, Underway. Boston, MA. Maryland Food Center Collection Market Underway. Facility. Farmers' Market Study, St. Paul, MN... Underway Public/Farmers' Market Feasibility Underway. Study, Camden, NJ. California Farmers' Market Web Site Underway. Development. Cincinnati Public Market Study, Underway. Cincinnati, OH. Oakland, CA Wholesale Market Study.... Underway. Direct Marketing Survey............... Spring 1997. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Skeen. Do you have any proposals to do additional Wholesale Market Development projects in fiscal years 1997 and 1998? Response. Yes, AMS has received proposals for this fiscal year. The Wholesale Market Development program completes, on average, 10-12 projects per year which includes projects involving traditional wholesale and collection markets, farmers' markets, and other direct marketing alternatives for producers. Mr. Skeen. Provide a list of all ongoing and planned wholesale market development projects and the cost of each. Response. AMS costs are not accounted for on an individual project basis. Following is a list of cooperative agreements that supported wholesale market projects. An Economic Analysis for Establishing Shipping-Point Marketing Facilities in Southwestern Virginia (Phase II), $25,000. Reading Terminal (Public) Marketing Expansion, $25,000. Assessment of Delaware Direct Market Operations, Customers Needs and Opinions, $18,000. Sea Islands Alternative Market Development Study, Sea Islands, South Carolina, $25,000. Improving Opportunities for Limited Resource Farmers to Supply Local School Lunch Program Needs, $75,000. Boston Public Market Initiative, Boston, Massachusetts, $25,000. California Farmer's Market Web Site Development, $25,000. Cincinnati Public Market Study, Cincinnati, Ohio, $50,000. Merchant Development Program, $75,000. wholesale market development and payments to states Mr. Skeen. How do these projects differ from projects funded under payments to states and possessions? Response. Occasionally there are similarities between a wholesale market project and a project funded under the Payments to States and Possessions programs, also called the Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program, or FSMIP, but the programs are structured quite differently. Wholesale Market projects focus on distributed channels with emphasis on type and location of marketing facilities, and AMS provides the funding. FSMIP is a matching-grant program between USDA and State departments of agriculture or other State agencies in which the State furnishes at least half of project resources. AMS oversees the projects and ensures that program requirements are met. FSMIP projects involve a wide range of marketing issues of interest to a State, region, or commodity. Management of the two programs within AMS is closely coordinated so that projects are undertaken within the program for which they are best suited. Mr. Skeen. What is the average length of a project under the Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program? What is the average cost of a project? Response. The large majority of projects in the Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program are one-year grant agreements. Occasionally grants are given for two years, and occasionally one-year grants are extended where circumstances warrant. The administrative rules permit a short time following the end of the agreement period to submit final reports. The average size, or cost, of a project varies based on the number and nature of applications received. For FY 1996, 21 grants were made with the $1.2 million appropriation, for an average Federal cost of just over $57,000 per project. The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program is a matching-grant program with States at least matching the Federal share, so the total cost of an average project is more than twice the Federal cost, or approximately $120,000 in FY 1996. marketing order imports Mr. Skeen. Your agency has been working with the U.S. Custom Service to develop a Memorandum of Understanding to provide you with import data that can be utilized in monitoring Section 8e imports. What is the status of these negotiations? Response. In July 1996, the U.S. Customs Service agreed to provide AMS with data tapes of information on Section 8e imports. AMS began receiving import data tapes from Customs in November 1996. This import information is crucial for AMS to reconcile imports and USDA inspection certificates to improve importers' compliance with Section 8e requirements. research and promotion Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 130 of last year's hearing record showing payments by research and promotion boards for OGC services to include fiscal year 1996 actuals and fiscal years 1997 and 1998 estimates. Response. Following is a table showing payments made by AMS research and promotion boards to OGC for legal services. RESEARCH AND PROMOTION OGC LEGAL SERVICES ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year-- ------------------------------------------- 1995 1996 1997 1998 actual actual estimate estimate ------------------------------------------------------------------------ National Dairy Board........ $15,000 $11,715 $17,000 $17,000 Egg Board................... 2,000 983 1,000 1,000 Honey Board................. 0 1,620 2,000 2,000 National Cattleman's Board.. 9,000 6,758 10,000 10,000 National Pork Board......... 4,000 1,892 3,000 3,000 Cotton Board................ 1,000 2,087 3,000 3,000 Potato Board................ 1,000 931 1,000 1,000 Watermelon Board............ 2,000 1,527 2,000 2,000 Soybean Board............... 5,000 776 1,000 1,000 Mushroom.................... 2,000 12,816 18,000 19,000 Fluid Milk.................. 10,000 2,961 4,000 4,000 Fresh Cut Flowers........... 0 2,272 4,000 4,000 ------------------------------------------- Total................. 51,000 46,338 \1\ 66,00 0 67,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ FY 1997 estimates are based on the FY 1996 hours billed plus known or anticipated activities (e.g., referenda, major regulation changes, court cases, etc.). Mr. Skeen. Authority was provided in the 1996 farm bill to enable industry groups who want to establish a research and promotion program to go directly to the USDA for its development through the rulemaking process instead of legislatively. Has this authority been used yet? Response. The Supima Association of America, representing the U.S. Extra Long Staple cotton industry, has submitted a proposed research and promotion order to AMS for their industry. Mr. Skeen. Six of the 14 research and promotion programs spent more than the assessments collected in fiscal year 1996. How is this the case and how are these shortfalls in collections rectified? Response. Research and promotion programs do not depend solely on assessments collected in the current year. Unspent funds from previous fiscal years are carried over and spent in subsequent fiscal years. In addition, carry-over funds are invested to earn income which also can be used for program activities. Mr. Skeen. The National Dairy Promotion and Research Board's revenue from producer assessments in fiscal year 1996 was $76.5 million of the approximately $230 million collected. Where did the other $153.5 million come from? Response. The entire producer promotion program is funded by a mandatory 15-cent per hundredweight assessment on all milk produced in the contiguous 48 States and marketed commercially by dairy farmers. This assessment totaled approximately $230 million. The Dairy Production Stabilization Act states that farmers can direct up to 10 cents per hundredweight of the assessment to State or regional promotion and nutrition education programs which accounted for the $153.5 million. The remaining $76.5 million represents the 5 cents per hundredweight that dairy farmers must send to the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board. Mr. Skeen. Provide a list of all research and promotion programs that receive funding from FAS, including how much each receives, for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 and estimates for fiscal year 1997. [The information follows:] FAS FUNDING TO INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND PROMOTION BOARDS [Dollars in thousands] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1995 1996 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ National Dairy Promotion and Research Board................................. $1,300 $2,000 $2,200 Honey Board............................ 33 130 133 Potato Board........................... 890 585 1,291 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The SoyBean, Beef, and Pork research and promotion programs do not receive funds from FAS directly, but do benefit from funds provided to industry associations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Board Contracts with ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Soybean Board......................... American Soybean Association. Beef Board............................ National Cattlemen's Beef Association.\1\ Pork Board............................ National Pork Producers Council.\1\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Subcontracts with the Meat Export Federation. FAS FUNDS PROVIDED TO RELATED INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1995 1996 1997 Fiscal year (actual) (estimate) (estimate) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ American Soybean Association..... $9,298 $9,095 $9,311 Meat Export Federation........... 11,149 9,997 11,874 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AMS receives no funds from FAS for research and promotion oversight activities. Mr. Skeen. There were a number of referendums scheduled for early 1997. Give the Committee a status on each one for the record. [The information follows:] 1997 research and promotion referendums April 15-30, 1997 to determine if popcorn processors favor implementation of the Popcorn Research and Promotion Program. June 2-20, 1997 to determine if cut flowers and greens handlers favor continuation of the PromoFlor program. June, 1997 to determine if kiwifruit producers and importers favor implementation of the Kiwifruit Research and Promotion Program. Mr. Skeen. If a referendum fails, what is the next step that is taken? Response. If an initial referendum fails, the program is not implemented. If a delayed referendum fails, the Secretary suspends or terminates collection of assessments within 6 months and suspends or terminates the order as soon as practicable. federal seed act Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on pages 130 and 131 of last year's hearing record showing the number of new complaints and the amount of penalties assessed under the Federal Seed Act to include fiscal year 1996. Also include the number you were able to resolve administratively. [The information follows:] FEDERAL SEED ACT-COMPLAINTS, PENALTIES, AND PENDING CASES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal years-- ------------------------------------------------------ 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complaints............................................... 411 611 527 543 532 Penalties................................................ $17,950 $43,250 $28,400 $56,300 $42,500 Cases pending............................................ 578 693 743 583 559 Resolved administratively \1\............................ 66 147 71 157 112 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Represents cases settled with an administrative penalty. Other cases were closed with letters of warning, held in abeyance pending future performance of the shipper, or were found not to be violations of the Federal Seed Act. research activities Mr. Skeen. Please provide a list of all research activities, including the subject, who is doing the research, and the cost for each contract for any research other than what occurs through the Federal- State Marketing Program. [The information follows:] RESEARCH INVOLVING AGREEMENTS WITH COOPERATORS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Project Cooperator/Contractor Cost ------------------------------------------------------------------------ An economic analysis for Virginia Polytechnic $25,000 establishing shipping-point Institute and State marketing facilities in University. southwestern Virginia (phase II). Reading terminal (public) market Reading terminal farmers 25,000 expansion. market trust. Assessment of Delaware direct University of Delaware... 18,000 market operations, customers needs and opinion. Sea Islands alternative market South Carolina Department 25,000 development study, Sea Islands, of Agriculture. SC. Impact of changes in Canadian Upper Great Plains 40,000 transportation and marketing upon Transportation U.S. grain producers in the Institute, North Dakota Northern Plains. State University, Fargo, North Dakota. Developing a procedural guide for Texas A&M University, 48,000 exporting U.S. animal and poultry College Station, Texas. products to Mexico under NAFTA. Survey of processed products California State 15,000 exporters. University, Fresno. Study of selected grain handling U.S. Feed Grains Council. 30,000 ports in Asia. Forecasting the demand for rail Kansas State University.. 30,000 grain transportation. Importance of regional railroads Upper Great Plains 20,000 to U.S. agriculture. Transportation Institute. Distribution channels for U.S. Arizona State University. 35,000 poultry exports to Poland/Ukraine. Improving opportunities for Georgia Department of 75,000 limited resource farmers to Agriculture. supply local school lunch program needs. Impacts on U.S. grain distribution Texas A&M University..... 60,000 arising from structural changes on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers. Boston Public Market Initiative, Department of Food and 25,000 Boston, MA. Agriculture, Boston, MA. California Farmers' Market Web California Federation of 25,000 Site Development. Certified Farmers. Cincinnati Public Market Study, Cincinnati Department of 50,000 Cincinnati, OH. Economic Development. Merchant Development program...... Avenue Market Corp. 75,000 Baltimore, MD. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ transportation services Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed management plan for the Missouri River System? Please provide an update on this plan. Response. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is revising several of the underlying studies they had undertaken on management of the Missouri River System. Following the completion of these studies, they will amend their regional economic development and national economic development models on alternative operating scenarios for the Missouri River. These revisions are expected to be completed in October 1997 and a new proposed operating plan for the Missouri River System should be completed in fiscal year 1998. Mr. Skeen. Your agency is monitoring three constraints that are restricting free trade of agricultural products to and from Mexico. Please provide an update on these constraints. Response. Although the number and intensity of constraints to increased agricultural trade between the United States and Mexico vary over time, AMS is principally involved in the monitoring of two such constraints at the present time. These are (1) the implementation of new phytosanitary and inspection requirements for imported grain, and (2) the bilateral access of U.S. and Mexican trucks required by the North American Free TradeAgreement--NAFTA. Although the Mexican government has imposed new restrictions on the entry of U.S. wheat into Mexico because of perceived problems with the Karnal Bunt disease, Mexico has not yet formally imposed the more restrictive phytosanitary rules on the importation of grain that it has been proposing for several years. Officials of U.S. and Mexican departments of transportation are negotiating a safety inspection program for Mexican trucks so they may enter the U.S. payments to states and possessions Mr. Skeen. Please provide a list of the projects that were approved for your Payments to States and Possessions program during fiscal year 1996 and those approved for fiscal year 1997. Also provide a brief description of each project. Response. We have not approved any projects for FY 1997 at this time. We are currently in the process of receiving and reviewing proposals for funding consideration. I will provide a list of projects funded in FY 1996. [The information follows:] FEDERAL-STATE MARKET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, FISCAL YEAR 1996 GRANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ State Description Awarded ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Arkansas..................... Expand the capability of $50,000 small and medium-size agribusinesses to identify and develop international markets for selected value- added specialty products. California................... Document and evaluate, 62,000 through a selected case study approach, the viability, effectiveness, and adaptability of Web Page technology in agricultural marketing. Delaware..................... Conduct surveys of different 29,640 potential users of Kenaf and develop a marketing plan for the Kenaf industry. Hawaii....................... Provide agricultural 69,166 producers, processors, and marketers with key market information that will lead to increased sales of Hawaiian tropical fruits in the Asian-Pacific Region. Idaho........................ Develop a consumer based 48,000 understanding of national aquacultural markets in order to assist the Idaho and U.S. trout industries in developing appropriate educational and marketing strategies. Idaho........................ Develop organic 36,450 certification templates, develop and implement an organic inspector apprenticeship program, and revise the Organic Inspection Manual consistent with the National Organic Program rules. Illinois..................... Increase the value of U.S. 98,000 soybeans by better serving the firms producing high- value products such as tofu and miso. Kentucky..................... Assess the existing 60,000 diversification and marketing activities underway in fifteen ``tobacco dependent'' counties; develop a coordinated, multi-county approach to improve these programs; and document diversification successes for use in future educational and training activities. Massachusetts................ Expand the database of 26,270 producers interested in exporting high-value food and agricultural products, measure the quantities of products presently exported, and develop a multilingual directory as a marketing tool to link producers with foreign buyers. Michigan..................... Conduct processing quality 57,650 assessments for new apple cultivars or promising advanced lines, using controlled processing conditions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FEDERAL-STATE MARKET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 1996 GRANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ State Description Awarded ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Minnesota.................... Identify marketing 45,000 opportunities and strategies for small scale producers and processors by increasing the scale of direct marketing of meat, fish, and fowl and by developing niche retail and food service markets for value-added products. Missouri..................... Assemble information and 70,000 develop cost comparisons for the present marketing system relative to alternative forms of an identity-preserved marketing system for soybeans in the cornbelt region. Nebraska..................... Investigate the feasibility 70,000 of producing and marketing turf and forage grass seed as a specialty crop in irrigated areas of western Nebraska. New Jersey................... Form a farmers' market 48,349 coalition, document characteristics and examine efficiency of farmers' market operations, and examine characteristics and demographics associated with farmers' market customers. New Jersey................... Identify, characterize, and 49,975 quantify the nutraceuticals market and provide information for farmers and others on production and marketing opportunities. North Carolina............... Provide additional 50,000 information concerning consumer purchasing decisions to assist North Carolina and Southeast regional producers and marketers of nursery products to better market their products and services. North Dakota................. Conduct market research, 75,000 business plan research and development, and engineering research and planning for a multi-state premium beef processing and marketing cooperative. Oklahoma..................... Identify various factors 38,000 that foreign importers and distributors in the food service industry consider in deciding which products to purchase and to discover what specialty food products are in demand. South Carolina............... Prepare a market analysis, 71,500 develop alternative production practices, determine structural and financial requirements for establishing a farmer marketing cooperative, and develop quality standards for domestically produced flax. Texas........................ Refine the evaluation of fat 90,000 deposits among different breeds of cattle and develop a training video which will enable graders of live cattle to be more accurate in applying grade standards. Vermont...................... Expand the base of regional 55,000 cooperative, involving both the public and private sectors, in developing export markets for Northeast dairy products (Phase II). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 137 of last year's hearing record showing obligations by geographic area to include fiscal year 1996. [The information follows:] [Page 111--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] emergency surplus removal Mr. Skeen. Also, update the tables that appear on the following page showing the amounts expended for Emergency Surplus Removal and Disaster Relief to include fiscal year 1996. [The information follows:] Emergency Surplus Removal [In thousands of dollars] Fiscal year: Amount 1985...................................................... $58,111 1986...................................................... 44,122 1987...................................................... 12,054 1988...................................................... 98,325 1989...................................................... 7,359 1990...................................................... 26,474 1991...................................................... 54,284 1992...................................................... 102,928 1993...................................................... 63,399 1994...................................................... 78,452 1995...................................................... 96,679 1996...................................................... 56,172 Disaster Relief Fiscal year: 1985...................................................... 0 1986...................................................... 0 1987...................................................... 0 1988...................................................... $3,253 1989...................................................... 0 1990...................................................... 1,743 1991...................................................... 5,642 1992...................................................... 11,175 1993...................................................... 4,636 1994...................................................... 3,463 1995...................................................... 530 1996...................................................... 1,168 export purchases Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 138 of last year's hearing record showing export purchases to include fiscal years 1995 and 1996 actuals. [The information follows:] Export Purchases [In thousands of dollars] Fiscal year: Amount 1986...................................................... 0 1987...................................................... 0 1988-1989................................................. $8,149 1989-1990................................................. 3,788 1990-1991................................................. 15,366 1991...................................................... 0 1992...................................................... 23,971 1993...................................................... 31,878 1994...................................................... 24,024 1995...................................................... 0 1996...................................................... 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Countries Fiscal year Commodities received ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1988-1989.............. Sunflowerseed Oil........... Egypt 1989-1990.............. Sunflowerseed Oil........... Algeria 1990-1991.............. Cottonseed Oil.............. Egypt, Turkey, Venezuela 1992................... Sunflowerseed Oil........... Algeria, Egypt, Mexico, Former Soviet Union Cottonseed Oil.............. Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Turkey, Venezuela 1993................... Sunflowerseed Oil........... Algeria, Guatemala, Mexico, Venezuela Cottonseed Oil.............. El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Turkey, Venezuela 1994................... Sunflowerseed Oil........... Algeria, Guatemala, Mexico, Turkey, Venezuela Cottonseed Oil.............. Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico ------------------------------------------------------------------------ commodity purchases Mr. Skeen. Provide an updated table of section 32 commodity purchases showing fiscal year 1993 through 1996. [The information follows:] [Pages 114 - 115--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Skeen. Please update the section 32 table that appears on page 141 of last year's record. [The information follows:] SECTION 32 [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Estimate Item ----------------------------------------------------------- 1996 1997 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appropriation or estimate........................... $6,263,764,062 $5,923,376,725 $5,799,067,890 1996 Rescission..................................... (5,000,000) 0 0 Unobligated balance available, start of year........ 235,129,235 300,000,000 237,511,705 Recovery............................................ 739,082 0 0 Total Available............................... 6,494,632,379 6,233,376,725 6,036,579,595 Less transfers to: Food and Consumer Service, Child Nutrition Programs................................... (5,597,858,000) (5,433,753,000) (5,151,391,000) Department of Commerce...................... (7,893,162) (66,381,000) 66,381,000 Total transfers........................... (5,670,751,162) (5,500,134,020) (5,217,772,000) Total available after transfer.................. 823,881,217 723,242,705 818,807,595 Less total obligations.......................... (496,073,233) (485,731,000) (416,888,000) Unobligated balance reverting to Treasury....... (27,807,984) 0 (101,919,595) Unobligated balance available, end of year...... 300,000,000 237,511,705 300,000,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- marketing order conversion cost Mr. Skeen. The legislative proposal to convert the administrative costs of marketing agreements and orders to user fees includes a one- time conversion cost of $536,000. Do you propose this cost be funded from section 32 funds. Response. Yes, we are proposing that they be funded from section 32 funds. surplus removal Mr. Skeen. The Secretary has the authority to use section 32 funds to remove surplus commodities from the market and bolster producers prices. Provide a list of each time the Secretary used this authority and the amount used for fiscal years 1995 and 1996. Has the Secretary used this authority yet this fiscal year? [The information follows:] Fiscal Year 1995 Item Dollars in millions Apricots, canned.................................................. $5.5 Asparagus, canned................................................. 1.3 Beef Roast........................................................ 13.5 Cherries, frozen.................................................. 7.1 Corn, canned...................................................... 2.8 Corn, frozen...................................................... 2.3 Currants.......................................................... 0.2 Date Pieces....................................................... 2.5 Grape Juice, canned............................................... 2.7 Grapefruit, juice................................................. 1.9 Ham Roast......................................................... 11.0 Peaches, canned................................................... 4.5 Peaches, frozen................................................... 1.5 Pears, canned..................................................... 5.4 Pears, fresh...................................................... 2.0 Plums, canned..................................................... 0.5 Pork, frozen ground............................................... 6.7 Potatoes, fresh................................................... 0.5 Raisins........................................................... 10.0 Salmon, canned.................................................... 9.6 Salmon, nuggets................................................... 0.3 Strawberries, frozen.............................................. 1.8 Walnuts........................................................... 3.1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________ Total........................................................... 96.7 Fiscal Year 1996 Item Dollars in millions Beef Roast........................................................ $6.4 Blueberries, frozen............................................... 10.1 Date Pieces....................................................... 1.9 Dried Figs........................................................ 2.4 Fig Nuggets....................................................... 0.4 Orange Juice, canned.............................................. 13.3 Potatoes, fresh................................................... 1.5 Prunes, dried..................................................... 6.4 Prunes Puree...................................................... 1.6 Salmon, canned.................................................... 10.0 Salmon Nuggets.................................................... 2.2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________ Total........................................................... 56.2 Fiscal Year 1997 thru 3/1/97 Item Dollars in millions Beef, canned...................................................... $8.8 Beef, ground...................................................... 16.0 Beef, Special Trim, boneless...................................... 6.5 Cheese............................................................ 1.3 Orange Juice...................................................... 0.2 Salmon, pouched................................................... 1.3 Unused Authorization.............................................. 34.9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________ Total........................................................... 69.0 pink salmon Mr. Skeen. Describe in further detail the pilot program for pink salmon packaged in a flexible pouch? Response. The pilot program to purchase pink salmon packaged in a flexible pouch was based on recommendations of a task force consisting of USDA officials, Alaska State officials and representatives of the industry. The group identified the need to find a salmon product that better meets the needs of the National School Lunch Program and would expand marketing opportunities for the salmon industry. Many items were submitted but the pouched pink salmon was selected due to its institutional pack and versatility. The pouched, pink salmon was purchased at a cost of $39.8640 per case, or $1.6610 per pound, compared to $22.3032 per case, or $1.0081 per pound, for canned pink salmon. The added cost to the USDA of approximately $0.65 per pound was due to deep skinning and removal of skin and bones. The pouched salmon was distributed to schools in 30 States. USDA agents conducted product exams with school representatives at six destinations and reported that recipients were highly pleased with the salmon. A final report on the pouched salmon will be developed from annual product acceptability reports submitted by States to the Food and Consumer Service at the end of the school year. perishable agricultural commodities act Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 140 of last year's hearing record showing the user fees and obligations for the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act to include fiscal year 1996 actuals and fiscal year 1998 estimates. [The information follows:] PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES ACT PROGRAM [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year Revenue Obligations ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1998 est........................................ $8,683 $7,495 1997 est........................................ 9,063 7,147 1996............................................ 9,690 6,735 1995............................................ 7,371 7,371 1994............................................ 7,464 7,338 1993............................................ 7,378 6,921 1992............................................ 7,875 6,731 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Skeen. Also update the table that appears on page 141 of last year's hearing record showing the reparations ordered related to the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act to include fiscal year 1996. [The information follows:] PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES ACT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dollar Reparation fiscal year Orders value in millions ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1996.............................................. 663 $12.2 1995.............................................. 825 11.9 1994.............................................. 1,180 17.9 1993.............................................. 1,112 16.6 1992.............................................. 1,217 16.1 1991.............................................. 1,171 14.7 1990.............................................. 1,130 12.6 1989.............................................. 1,144 9.5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Skeen. Including Fiscal year 1996, how many notices filed by unpaid sellers were there for the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. Response. In fiscal year 1996, unpaid sellers filed 36,179 Trust notices, a significant decrease from the 160,490 filed with the Department in fiscal year 1995. This 88 percent decrease in trust filings is a direct result of the 1995 amendments to the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act which eliminated the requirement that creditors file trust notices with the Department in order to preserve their trust rights. Mr. Skeen. Under PACA, traders who have been found to have committed unfair trade practices face license suspensions or revocations. During fiscal years 1995 and 1996, how many traders were found guilty of unfair trade practices and how many had their licenses suspended? Response. In fiscal year 1995, there were 48 traders found to have committed unfair trade practices. Of those 48 traders, 6 of the firms had their licenses suspended, 1 firm paid a monetary penalty in lieu of a license suspension, 9 firms had their licenses revoked, and 32 firms were found to have committed repeated and flagrant violations. In fiscal year 1996, there were 51 traders found to have committed unfair trade practices. Of the 51 trades, 1 firm's license was suspended, 10 firms paid monetary penalties in lieu of a license suspension, 7 firms had their licenses revoked, and 33 firms were found to have committed repeated and flagrant violations of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. A finding of repeated and flagrant violations results in licensing and employment restrictions on a firm and its principals identical to those restrictions imposed by a license revocation. Mr. Skeen. Proposed revisions to PACA regulations were published in September 1996. The revised regulations are expected to be finalized in 1997. When do you expect final regulations to be published? Describe the changes included in the final regulations. Response. The final Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act regulations should be published in late March 1997. The final regulations have not been changed significantly from the proposed rule, except that the section of the proposed rule involving the collection of license fees has been separated from the final rule. A notice re- opening the comment period on the license fee issue will be published concurrently with the final rule in order to allow other interested parties to comment. minnesota-wisconsin milk price Mr. Skeen. A new basic formula price replaced the Minnesota- Wisconsin price to establish minimum class prices under all milk marketing orders on June 1, 1995. This was seen as only a short-term solution to allow the industry additional time to consider longer-term solutions. What is the status of this situation? Response. The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 directed USDA to restructure the Federal milk order program. The development of a replacement for the current basic formula price is part of this effort. AMS has appointed an internal committee to seek industry comments and to determine a replacement to be adopted. This first committee report isscheduled for release in April 1997. The entire restructuring process is to be completed by April 1999. administrative expenses Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 143 of last year's hearing record showing the details of the administrative expenses account to include fiscal year 1996. [The information follows:] AMS ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES ACCOUNT [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Receipts Expenditures Carryover ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1990............................................................ $39,525 $34,816 $14,996 1991............................................................ 44,186 42,129 17,053 1992............................................................ 48,774 47,091 18,736 1993............................................................ 51,866 46,830 23,772 1994............................................................ 49,127 46,652 26,248 1995............................................................ 57,448 49,529 34,166 1996............................................................ 51,547 46,887 38,827 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Skeen. Also update the following table showing the object class breakout for the limitation on administrative expenses account to include fiscal year 1996 actuals and fiscal year 1998 estimates. [The information follows:] ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE LIMITATION OBJECT CLASSIFICATION [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1996 actual 1997 est. 1998 est. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Personnel compensation: 11.1 Full-time permanent.............. $13,237 $16,190 $16,434 11.3 Other than full-time permanent... 7,665 10,013 10,164 11.5 Other personnel compensation..... 1,415 2,649 2,689 -------------------------------- 11.9 Total personnel compensation.................... 22,317 28,852 29,287 ================================ 12.1 Personnel benefits: Civilian..... 3,798 5,037 5,111 13.0 Benefits for former personnel.... 2,169 2,100 2,100 21.0 Travel and transportation of persons............................... 2,788 3,150 3,150 22.0 Transportation of things......... 1,191 1,560 1,560 23.1 Rental payments to GSA........... 139 335 335 23.2 Rental payments to others........ 2,696 3,100 3,100 23.3 Communications, utilities & misc. charges............................... 4,909 5,600 5,600 24.0 Printing and reproduction........ 28 75 75 25.2 Other services................... 1,978 2,463 2,463 25.3 Purchases of goods and services from Government accounts.............. 206 238 238 25.7 Operation and maintenance of equipment............................. 1,085 1,246 1,246 25.8 Subsistence and support of persons............................... 8 14 14 26.0 Supplies and materials........... 999 1,040 1,040 31.0 Equipment 2,569.................. 4,202 4,202 ......... 42.0 Insurance claims and indemnities. 6 0 0 43.0 Interest and dividends........... 1 0 0 -------------------------------- 99.0 Total obligations.......... 46,887 59,012 59,521 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ mailed market news reports Mr. Skeen. Subscription fees are charged for facsimile and mailed market news reports except for tobacco mailed reports which are free to producers as per the Tobacco inspection Act of 1935. What is the cost of AMS for these reports? Response. The cost to AMS for the tobacco mailed reports, free to producers, averages about $7,000 per year. Mr. Skeen. Provide a list of all commodity market news reports where fees are charged for facsimiles and mailings. Response. Fees are charged to all recipients of printed markets news reports on cotton and cottonseed; dairy and dairy products; fruits and vegetables; livestock, grain, and meat; poultry and eggs; and to non-producer recipients of tobacco reports. usda pesticide data program Mr. Skeen. Since 1991, how many agricultural use pesticides have been reregistered using data gathered by the Pesticide Data Program? Response. To date, there have been 16 reregistration activities by EPA for major pesticides in U.S. agriculture for multiple commodity uses: aldicarb, benomyl, captan, chlorothalonil, chlorpropham, DCPA or dacthal, dicofol, ethion, fenamiphos, iprodione, mevinphos, pentachloronitrobenzene orquintozene, permethrin, propargite, thiabendazole, and trifluralin. There have also been four special review activities on: 2,4-D, diazinon, disulfoton, and methyl parathion. Following is an example provided by EPA of the value and uses for pesticide data. To determine the present status for each of these pesticides for registration on crop by crop basis we gathered information from the Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA. [The information follows:] [Pages 121 - 123--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Skeen. The number of commodities tested in the Pesticide Data Program dropped from 12 in fiscal year 1996 to 11 in fiscal year 1997. Which commodity was eliminated? Response. The EPA did not have the contracting authority to enter into an agreement with GIPSA to do wheat and soybean sampling and testing in fiscal year 1997 and they were therefore eliminated from the commodity count. Subsequent to the preparation of the explanatory notes, funding has been returned to AMS from the EPA, enabling testing to resume. In total, there are 14 commodities in the 1997 program, with no more than 13 being sampled at any time. The fresh commodities covered in the 1997 program are pears and potatoes--for aldicarb residues only, plus spinach, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, and winter squash. Processed commodities include apple and orange juice, canned or frozen green beans, canned peaches, and frozen winter squash alternating with fresh squash. We also tested wheat, soybeans, and milk. Mr. Skeen. Provide a list of all international trade disputes that have been settled using data generated from PDP. Response. We do not have a list of trade disputes settled using PDP data. AMS personnel have played a direct role in promoting U.S. exports by presenting PDP sampling and testing objectives to countries like Indonesia, Japan and Korea that are interested in importing U.S. wheat and other U.S. agricultural products. Mr. Skeen. Provide some specific examples, if there are any, of how the program has suffered this year under EPA's administration. Response. Let me begin by stating that the cooperation between AMS and EPA during this situation has been excellent. Extraordinary efforts were necessary on the part of both agencies to ensure that the program functioned as normally as possible. Although state program operations were restarted soon after issuance of EPA contracts in November, some problems still exist for AMS. The 3 month hiatus in sampling and testing (September through November) caused data deficiencies in the 1996 PDP Annual Data Summary, because of the resulting inability to calculate national statistical estimates. AMS lost half of its PDP headquarters staff, curtailing some of PDP's operations. I am pleased to state that the current staff has made extraordinary efforts to maintain monthly data collection in 1997, to complete the 1995 Annual Data Summary, and to hold an Executive Steering Committee meeting and a Federal/State planning meeting. Operating on minimal staff required postponing revisions in the standard operating procedures, eliminating sampling and laboratory reviews, eliminating newsletters, evaluating new technologies, and delaying the 1996 Summary. With 14 organizations in the program, about 900 sampling sites, and over 100 sampling personnel, the use of EPA's contract authority instead of AMS' cooperative agreement authority has created a rigid structure for the program.\1\ Changes in program needs periodically occur, necessitating shifts in resources. AMS had more flexibility to address problems by rearranging program resources as necessary. Significant changes in program delivery to address any emerging food safety issues requires more time using EPA contracts. Also, authority to purchase needed equipment is restricted under EPA contracts, which resulted in no EPA funds being spent on capital equipment this year. This will postpone upgrades of testing equipment and the implementation of new technology. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Unlike AMS, EPA does not have the legal authority to enter into cooperative agreements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Skeen. What has been done to date with Congress' directive that EPA enhance in-house PDP data collection abilities? Response. It is our understanding that EPA expressed concerns about managing the Pesticide Data Program. I will include in the record the EPA memorandum to Congressman Lewis proposing the transfer of funds to the USDA to administer the Pesticide Data Program, and the House Committee on Appropriations response approving the proposal. An interagency agreement transferring funds to AMS from EPA for administering the program was signed on February 25, 1997. [The information follows:] [Pages 125 - 130--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] transportation regulatory actions Mr. Skeen. How many transportation regulatory actions did AMS participate in during fiscal 1996? Response. AMS participated in three transportation regulatory proceedings during fiscal 1996. First, AMS filed comments several times before the Surface Transportation Board, or STB, in the Union Pacific- Southern Pacific Railroad merger proceeding. In those comments, AMS highlighted the importance of competitive rail service for agricultural producers and shippers and the entire rural economy, as well as the adverse effects of continuing consolidation and concentration in the railroad industry. AMS recommended several measures designed to maintain or increase competitive options for grain shippers. Secondly, AMS filed comments on proposed rail line abandonment procedures by the STB. AMS advised the STB that its proposed reduction in service and financial data requirements for petitioning railroads in branch line abandonment proceedings could have an adverse impact on rural constituents. Finally, AMS also filed comments on proposed STB fee schedules which would have significantly increased filing fees for shippers that pursue rate or service complaints against railroads. AMS cautioned the STB that the proposed fee increases for many of its services were prohibitive for all but the largest and most well- financed businesses that ship by rail. In the most extreme example, the STB had proposed raising the fee for bringing a rate complaint from $1,000 to $233,000. AMS advised STB that small to medium-sized agricultural rail shipping establishments cannot afford to pay such exorbitant fees. oig and gao reports Mr. Skeen. Provide a brief status of each ongoing OIG and GAO report. Response. Following is the status of each ongoing OIG and GAO audit included in the FY 1998 Explanatory Notes. The OIG audit reports were completed for the ``Investment Program'' on February 18, 1997, and for ``Cotton Classing'' on February 21, 1997. The OIG draft report on the ``Certification Process of the Fruit and Vegetable Division'' is expected to be completed by April 1997. The GAO ``Opportunities to Reduce Federal Inspection/Grading Costs'' draft report was completed on February 3, 1997. The GAO``Assessment of Concentration Within the Meat Packing Industry'' is expected to be completed by April 1997, and the ``Study of School Lunch Meal Program's Best Practices'' is expected to be completed by September 1997. performance measures Mr. Skeen. Two performance measure indicators show a percentage reduction from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 1997. Under Federal seed, the percentage of cases submitted that are completed is projected to decrease from 100 percent to 92 percent and under cooperative qualifications, the percentage of informal rulemaking completed within internal time frames is projected to decrease from 100 percent to 85 percent. Please explain the reason for these reductions. Response. The 92 percent figure was cited for Federal Seed due to uncertainties of case load and staffing. AMS' goal is to complete 100 percent of the cases made each year and over the past two years this goal has been met. On a regular basis, AMS can meet internal marketing agreement and order program timeframes for formal and informal rulemaking 85 percent of the time. This is a strong indicator of customer satisfaction. In 1996, AMS exceeded its goal and met its timeframes for informal rulemaking 100 percent of the time. peanut non-signers Mr. Skeen. AMS receives reimbursement from assessments for peanut non-signers. Briefly describe for the record how this reimbursement is used. Response. Assessments received by the Agricultural Marketing Service from peanut non-signers--handlers of domestically produced peanuts who have not signed Peanut Marketing Agreement No. 146--are deposited in a AMS agency fund to offset associated costs. The $39,000 collected in assessments for the 1995-96 season went toward expenses for billing and collecting services performed by the Department's National Finance Center, administrative oversight, and compliance audits of individual non-signers. limitation on administrative expenses Mr. Skeen. You are reimbursed for the grading of cotton and tobacco. This reimbursement was $46.9 million in fiscal year 1996. You project this level to be $59.0 million in fiscal year 1997. What is the reason for the increase? Response. The $59.0 million level for fiscal year 1997 is a statutory limitation set well in advance of the start of the fiscal year to insure uninterrupted services to private sector customers regardless of fluctuations in actual crop size. The actual obligations will not be known until the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 1997. Mr. Skeen. Provide a breakout between cotton and tobacco for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998. [The information follows:] LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1996 actual 1997 est. 1998 est. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cotton........................... 32,083 41,712 42,045 Tobacco.......................... 14,804 17,300 17,476 -------------------------------------- Total...................... 46,887 59,012 59,521 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ reimbursements from milk market administrators Mr. Skeen. Why do you anticipate obligations for milk market administrators for Federal telecommunications system employee compensation and New York market administrator to increase from $18,952 in fiscal year 1996 to $208,000 in fiscal year 1997? Response. The increase in fiscal year 1997 is due to additional reimbursements for audits of the milk market administrators' financial records. AMS enters into contracts with certified public accounting firms that conduct the audits. The cost of these audits is paid for from milk market order assessments. travel expenses Mr. Skeen. You are projecting to increase your travel budget by 28 percent in fiscal year 1997 and another 14 percent in fiscal year 1998. Why? Response. Most of the estimated travel costs in fiscal year 1997 are for the Pesticide Recordkeeping program, which received increased funding to implement the program and establishcompliance monitoring activities. For fiscal year 1998, we requested program increases for our Market News and Organic Certification programs, and requested that the Pesticide Data program be reinstated in AMS. Each of these activities increased our estimated travel costs. other services expenses Mr. Skeen. Please provide a sub-object class breakout of object class 25.2 Other Services, for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998. [The information follows:] OTHER SERVICES OBJECT CLASS--25.2 [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year-- Object class -------------------------- 1996 1997 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Contractual Services (2510).................. $2,281 $2,300 $2,303 Agreements (2550)............................ 9,256 383 9,349 Telephone Equipment (2538)................... 45 45 46 NFC Processing/Greenbook (2512).............. 221 223 223 Training Tuition Fees (2523)................. 130 132 132 Repair Alteration (2530)..................... 57 58 58 Miscellaneous Service (2570)................. 207 209 209 -------------------------- Total.................................. 12,197 3,350 12,320 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ printing and reproduction expenses Mr. Skeen. Please explain why your printing and reproduction costs increase by 30 percent in fiscal year 1997. Response. Printing and reproduction costs incurred by AMS programs vary from year to year. These costs dropped by 40 percent from fiscal year 1995 to 1996. In fiscal year 1997, we expected printing costs to increase in our Transportation Services, Wholesale Market and Organic Certification programs. The Transportation Services and Wholesale Market program print workbooks, handbooks, guides, and directories. The Organic program plans to publish its proposed rule in the Federal Register this year, with associated printing and reproduction of supporting documentation. passenger motor vehicle Mr. Skeen. You are proposing the addition of one passenger motor vehicle for use by the cotton futures program in response to an expected increase in workload. For the record, describe the cotton futures program and tell the Committee why you expect the workload to increase enough to warrant an additional car. Response. Cotton is submitted year-round for futures classification and certification, as opposed to the Form 1 classification service provided to growers primarily during the harvest. Futures classing and certification services are provided only by the Standardization and Quality Assurance--QSA--Branch in the AMS Cotton Division complex in Memphis, TN, and USDA's official certification of quality is required for cotton traded on the New York Cotton Futures Exchange. QSA also provides quality control classification for the Form 1 program. In the past few years, the volume of cotton submitted for futures classification each year has grown dramatically. Large volumes of futures samples have been submitted with very short notice for certification on the October and December futures contracts. This futures cotton arrives during the time when the Memphis complex is very busy with the harvest period Form 1 classing for growers. During the harvest season, Form 1 classing has always taken top priority in the allocation of resources and equipment, especially since the futures volume was traditionally very small. If a small amount of futures samples was submitted during the fall, which was a rarity ten years ago, the related transportation needs could be met in conjunction with the Form 1 classing. With the growth in futures volume over the past seven to eight years, the transfer of related futures documents, required futures sampling inspections at Memphis certified warehouses where the futures cotton must be stored, and other related duties associated with futures certification have grown to the extent that these activities cannot be consolidated smoothly with the Form 1 needs for local transportation. The continuation of this pattern of heavy futures activity during periods when it was light in previous years indicates that the business patterns of the cotton market have changed on a more or less permanent basis. Therefore, another motor vehicle is needed for the AMS Memphis Cotton division complex in order to continue to provide customers with the responsive and expeditious futures certification services they have come to expect. international market news Mr. Skeen. You are requesting an increase of $320,000 to expand reporting in foreign markets to include South and Central America and the Pacific Rim countries. You state this proposal goes beyond the information currently gathered by attaches. Tell the Committee, first what information the attaches now collect and provide, and second, how the information you propose to collect and provide will be different. Response. Attaches primarily gather information on inventory levels, production, outlook, analysis, consumption levels, trade policies, and marketing opportunities. Reports are released on a varying schedule depending on commodity and country, as well as on a monthly or annual basis. The information AMS proposes to collect and disseminate will be time-sensitive, based on actual market transactions and trading volume levels. Our market reports will be disseminated on a regularly scheduled basis, some daily or weekly, to provide essential and timely information to U.S. producers on foreign market prices and volumes traded. This regularly reported data will be more useful to U.S. exporters in their day to day decision-making on when and where to market their products, whereas the FAS data provides general trade opportunity information for longer-range planning. market concentration reporting Mr. Skeen. I read in the budget justifications where over 75 feedlots and major packers in five states have agreed to begin reporting the terms of sale for cattle traded under captive supply arrangements in their market areas. How many feedlots and major packers are there in total? Response. There are over 450 feedlots and 10 major packers in the five states. marketing services--staff-years Mr. Skeen. Three states, New Jersey, Utah, and West Virginia receive marketing services funding only with no associated staff-years. Why is this? Response. The funds utilized did not equate to a whole staff-year. adp purchases Mr. Skeen. What is the total amount your agency spent on ADP purchases in fiscal year 1996? What do you plan to spend in fiscal year 1997 and 1998? Include in this amount all ADP hardware and software purchases and support services. [The information follows:] ADP PURCHASES [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Non- Appropriated appropriated ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FY 1996................................. $896 $2,214 FY 1997................................. 735 3,240 FY 1998................................. 855 3,430 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ federal/state market news Mr. Skeen. Provide a list for the record of all states that eliminated their market news programs and the amount associated with each. Response. The following state programs for market news reporting have been eliminated: Livestock and Grain State programs Amounts California.................................................... $455,000 New York...................................................... 180,000 Ohio.......................................................... 40,000 Washington.................................................... 60,000 Fruit and Vegetable State programs Amounts Arizona....................................................... $25,000 California.................................................... 1,200,000 Maine......................................................... 37,000 New York...................................................... 186,000 Washington.................................................... 62,000 market news home page Mr. Skeen. How many accessed your home page in fiscal 1996? Response. Although usage statistics were not captured during all of fiscal year 1996, the AMS Internet homepage hits averagedapproximately 7,500 accesses per week, or 390,000 accesses per year. In fiscal year 1996 the AMS home page contained information about the Market News program but was not used for actual delivery of Market News Reports. AMS began implementation of an Internet home page for Market News users early in fiscal year 1997 and formally announced its availability to the public through a news release on February 19, 1997. Over 1,400 current reports are available with approximately half of them being updated each day. Since the system has only been available for about a month our statistics are limited, but we expect usage to grow as the availability becomes better known and the reports offered expand. The most commonly used statistic seen on the Internet to measure usage is ``hits'' which counts every connection, including moving from one page to another within a specific site. During our first three weeks of operation we were receiving approximately 75,000 hits per week. ``Visits'' measures the number of distinct times someone connects to the site, although one visit will usually result in several different reports being accessed. We have been receiving approximately 250 visits per day in our first few weeks of operation. cotton classing database Mr. Skeen. I read in the budget justifications where purchasers of cotton, primarily merchants and manufacturers, increased their use of AMS' central database to obtain classing data by 48 percent in fiscal year 1996. What was the reason for this increase in data usage? Response. The increase in data usage was because many domestic textile mills have discontinued use of their own High Volume Instrument--HVI--laboratories and rely on AMS classification data for use in their production processes. This heavy reliance on AMS HVI data by the mills has also resulted in an increase in the usage of the AMS central database of cotton classification statistics by suppliers, merchants, and shippers. The mills also receive data from the central database either as a spot check to authenticate data received from other sources, or to obtain the data when it is not available from other sources. In 1992, interested parties accessed statistics on 2.7 million bales. So far, in the 1996 crop year they have accessed 15.5 million bales. cotton classing fees Mr. Skeen. What is a voluntary central agent and why is there a five cent per sample discount if cotton producers are billed through them? Response. A voluntary central agent is a gin or warehouse that collects the cotton classification services user fee from the cotton producers. Since billing and collecting from approximately 1,200 gins and warehouses is more economical for AMS than billing and collecting from approximately 40,000 producers, a discount of five cents per bale is given to the gins and warehouses. quality through verification program Mr. Skeen. Describe for the record the Quality Through Verification program used to grade processed fruits and vegetables that was developed by your agency. Response. AMS Quality Through Verification--QTV--program is a new service currently in the ``pilot'' phase. QTV provides a voluntary, user-fee, audit-based inspection service for producers of processed and minimally processed fruits and vegetables and other commodities. QTV empowers firms to apply science-based hazard analysis critical control point, or HACCP, principles to identify hazards in their food manufacturing processes and take steps to reduce or eliminate risks associated with these hazards. Under QTV, AMS reviews and assesses a firm's documented food safety and food quality QTV plan. After a plan meets QTV program requirements, AMS uses on-site audits to determine the effectiveness of a firm's implementation of its plan. AMS auditors review records, observe and interview employees, conduct pre-operation sanitation inspection, and follow a specialized checklist to confirm that the company is following its QTV plan. Only companies that are able to meet existing good manufacturing and sanitation practices and demonstrate that they are following the HACCP-based techniques called for in their QTV plan are qualified to be in the program. QTV provides for reduced audit costs where a facility has established a documented and verified food safety and quality history. Quality grading of processed fruits and vegetables may be covered under a firm's QTV plan although it is not a mandatory component of the program. Currently, several firms are participating at various levels of development in the pilot phase. Firms in the pilot phase meeting all program requirements may use a new official Department of Agriculture mark, ``PROCESS VERIFIED.'' The PROCESS VERIFIED mark tells commercial buyers and consumers that USDA has been monitoring the manufacturer's performance under QTV. All participants in the QTV pilot phase are producers of fresh-cut produce except one. quality and sanitation audits Mr. Skeen. I read where AMS is doing quality and sanitation audits for a major food service business. Is this a new line of work for you? Response. Working with quality and sanitation audits for major food service business is not a new line of work for AMS. Sanitation audits are authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, and AMS has been performing sanitation inspections of dairy processing facilities for many decades. AMS' Processed Fruit and Vegetable Grading program begin conducting quality and sanitation audits for a major food service company in June 1990, and a second company audit began in July 1996. plant variety protection act Mr. Skeen. Provide a table for the Plant Variety Protection Act that shows the number of applications received, the number of applications pending action, the number or applications approved, the number of certificates issued, and the number that expired for fiscal years 1995 and 1996. [The information follows:] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year-- --------------------- 1995 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Applications: Received...................................... 324 408 Pending at end of year........................ 740 870 Certificates: Issues \1\.................................... 189 228 Expired or Abandoned.......................... 101 92 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ If applications are approved, certificates are issued. international carriage of perishable foodstuffs Mr. Skeen. Compliance with the Agreement on the International Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs is mandatory in Europe and voluntary in the United States. What impact, if any, has this had on the export of U.S. perishable commodities. Response. Except for one incident in 1994, there has been no impact. In 1983 the United States declared under article 10 ``The Agreement does not apply to carriage in the United States of America and its territories.'' While France and Italy filed formal objections to this declaration in 1984 and other European countries supported their position, there has generally been no impact on exports of U.S. frozen food and chilled beef, pork, poultry, dairy, and seafood products covered by the Agreement. Under article 5 of the Agreement, U.S. perishable commodities transported in ocean containers are exempt. Air cargo shipments of U.S. perishable commodities are not covered by the Agreement, except when they are transported from European airports by highway to a third country. Notwithstanding the exemption of U.S. air cargo from the Agreement, an incident occurred 3 years ago. In February 1994, the French government, without warning, implemented a ban on U.S. seafood, closed certain airports to seafood imports, and then required stringent sanitary inspections. This action was in response to rioting French fisherman, who were angered by low prices and the large volume of imports during the Lenten season. Delays inherent in the new inspection procedures spoiled fresh seafood that had just landed and effectively blocked most imports. After an international outcry and pressure from the U.S. government, U.S. exporters, and French importers, and other governments, the French government reduced the inspection burden and reopened airports. Seasonal demand for imported product, however, had subsided by that time. voluntary certification of equipment Mr. Skeen. How many voluntary certifications of U.S. manufactured equipment exported to Europe has AMS issued? Response. Since 1986, AMS has issued 240 voluntary certifications of U.S. manufactured equipment to Europe. One hundred and forty-two refrigerated trailers were exported to Greece, eighty-five were exported to Turkey, and thirteen were exported to Denmark. bulk grain facilities study Mr. Skeen. AMS has entered into a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Feed Grains Council to study bulk grain facilities in Malaysia and Singapore. When do you expect this study to be completed? Response. This study should be completed by May 1997. We have been working with the U.S. Feed Grains Council to examine port grain handing and distribution problems in the developing grain markets in Asia. Due to the rapid increase of income and the demand for meat, feed grains exports to Indonesia and several other Asian nations have been rising in recent years. Unfortunately, some of these countries lack adequate port facilities to handle large-size ocean vessels efficiently. To take advantage of the significant economies of scale in bulk ocean shipping, the U.S. Exporters prefer to use large vessels. Also, U.S. feed grain exporters are highly interested in examining options for improving grain handling in order to reduce transportation costs. AMS and the U.S. Feed Grains Council recently conducted a study of the gain ports in Indonesia. This report will include an overview of current problems, identify specific infrastructure needs, and evaluate prospects for improvement. jones act Mr. Skeen. What were the findings and recommendations of your research on the impact of Jones Act restrictions on the movement of feeder cattle from Hawaii to the mainland and on the movement of feed to North Carolina livestock producers? Response. We have a research project underway addressing that subject. We will make the results available when the report is completed later this year. rail line abandonments Mr. Skeen. What were the results of your analysis of the scope and impact of rail line abandonments on railroad service to rural areas? Response. Among the principal findings of a recent cooperative study of the ``Impacts of Rail Restructuring on Agriculture and Rural America'' between AMS and the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute at North Dakota State University were the following: Railroads have filed for abandonment on nearly 43,000 miles of rail line since 1980. More than 37,000 miles of that total were approved for abandonment, with more than 33,000 miles actually being abandoned during that time frame. The difference between mileage granted and actually abandoned, approximately 4,500 miles, represent miles taken over by short line railroads since 1980 that are still in use. For the most part, abandonment has occurred in transportation competitive regions much more extensively than it has in regions with few transport options. Transportation competitive States such as Iowa and Illinois had large amounts of abandonments, while States with little transportation competition such as Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Wyoming had very few miles abandoned. In factoring short line sales with the difference between miles granted and those abandoned, it is apparent that line sales to short line railroads have been used more in States with little transportation competition. Abandonment is often the results of rather than the cause of economic decline in rural communities. Nonetheless, abandonment has had a significant impact on many rural communities. These impacts have included: increased transportation costs to shippers; highway and road deterioration; increased highway user cost; reductions in rural personal income and gross business volume; unemployment; reductions in local tax revenues; and reduced economic development opportunities. rural bridges Mr. Skeen. What were the findings of the analysis of the adequacy of the rural bridges in the U.S. and what are the plans, if any, to address these findings. Response. During fiscal year 1996, the USDA released a series of reports that assessed the condition of rural roads and bridges, and analyzed financing and management issues relevant to local road administrators. Using 1994 Federal Highway Administration data on bridges, the reports showed that 23.3 percent of all county-maintained bridges and 12.7 percent of the town bridges were in intolerable condition and were classified as having a high priority for replacement. About 32 percent of all county bridges and almost 28 percent of all town bridges were classified as ``structurally deficient''--a condition indicating that the bridge has some structural components needing repair. Local highway departments are facing many challenges in finding ways to finance bridge repairs. Declining rural populations have reduced tax revenues that could fund local infrastructure improvements. Federal assistance covering a 6-year period beginning in 1992 and ending in 1997 for road and bridge improvements was authorized by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, or ISTEA. Because the ISTEA is due to be renewed, state highway officials and local road administrators will be competing with other public transportation and urban highway programs for Federal improvement funds. AMS designed this series of reports to present government officialsat all levels with information on the rural road and bridge needs of rural communities during the debate over renewal of ISTEA. merchant development program Mr. Skeen. Describe in further detail the Merchant Development Program? Response. In 1996 AMS sponsored a wholesale market project with the Avenue Market Corporation in Baltimore to enable minorities to start businesses in the local market. The program includes eight weeks of formal training, and 1\1/2\ years of mentoring by merchants who are operating businesses in the market. The objective is to develop a publication for use by other markets across the country to replicate this program. AMS sponsored ten candidates for training of which seven completed the formal training and are operating food businesses in the Avenue Market in Baltimore. northeast interstate dairy compact Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact? Response. The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact has been challenged in court by the Milk Industry Foundation, which last fall requested a preliminary injunction to block the implementation of the Compact. An opinion from the U.S. District Court for D.C., issued December 11, 1996, denied the request for an injunction, but commented on ``deficiencies'' in the Secretary's findings concerning compelling public interest. The Court stated that the Secretary failed to explain how the comments received supported a finding of compelling public interest in the Compact region, and stated that MIF would likely succeed on the merits of the case. At the time of the decision, the proceeding was on course to be briefed, with oral argument to follow. The Justice Department filed a motion to stay the proceeding for the purpose of filing an amplified decision supporting the Secretary's finding of compelling public interest. A 45-day stay was ordered by the Court to allow the Secretary time to review the administrative record from a fresh perspective, reach a conclusion to the existence of a compelling public interest, and provide a reasoned explanation. In addition to the amplified decision due March 20, briefs are due in April, and oral argument is scheduled for May on the question of whether the court will find the Secretary's action illegal. In the meantime, the Compact Commission has been formed, held meetings, set up committees, and appointed an executive director. The Commission held hearings to consider comments relative to determining an administrative assessment, and set that amount at $0.015 cents per hundredweight of fluid milk, effective for December 1996 Class I milk. business process reengineering for marketing orders Mr. Skeen. The Marketing Order Administration Branch is conducting a business process re-engineering project and expects to realize considerable cost savings as a result. What was the outcome of this project? Response. The Marketing Order Administrative Branch, or MOAB, is implementing numerous recommendations developed as part of its Business Process Re-engineering, or BPR, project. The project involved an in- depth analysis of all its processes but focused on improvements in the administration of marketing orders. MOAB employees and industry representatives were active participants in the BPR study. Key recommendations of the study included increasing efficiencies and timeliness by streamlining processes and eliminating unnecessary levels of review, redefining employee responsibilities to ensure that services are delivered when needed, and improving internal and external customer satisfaction and working relationships. Over time we expect to reallocate resources and funds to reflect the streamlining and restructuring and to improve timeliness and enhance the quality of service provided to customers. pistachio marketing order Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the new marketing order to cover pistachios grown in California, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada? Response. The proposed new marketing order covers the four states you mentioned and New Mexico. On August 20-23, 1996, the Department conducted a promulgated hearing to consider the new marketing order. Briefs on the hearing record were due by October 31. The Department is reviewing the hearing record and the three briefs received. If the record supports a proposed program, the next step would be for the Department to issue a Recommended Decision and provide an opportunity for public comment. If the comments received are favorable the Secretary would issue a referendum order. Approval by a two-thirds or larger majority of the number of producers or volume of production represented in a referendum is required before the program could be established. The proposed program wouldestablish mandatory quality and inspection requirements and would include authority for container, pack, and labeling requirements. If implemented, a 10-member administrative committee, with an alternate for each member, would locally administer the order. the organic certification program Mr. Skeen. The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 required the Secretary to establish and implement a program to certify organic production. Mr. Hatamiya, you are requesting a $505,000 increase in 1998 to continue the implementation of this program. What is the value of the organic industry today? Reponse. The value of the organic industry is difficult to estimate. According to the trade press, the rate of growth in sales of organic products has been quite high in recent years. Sales of $2.8 billion were reported for 1995 and $3.4 billion for 1996 based upon a growth rate of 22.6% which was reported in the Natural Foods Merchandiser. Mr. Skeen. Will all organic producers and handlers have to be certified under this program? Response. No, the Organic Foods Production Act allows for producers and handlers selling less than $5,000 in value of agricultural products to be exempt from the certification requirements of the program. We also will be evaluating exemptions for certain types of handlers who do not process an organic product. Mr. Skeen. How many of them are there? Response. We estimate that there are approximately 4,050 organic producers in the U.S. It is unclear how many organic producers and handlers will be selling less than $5,000 in value of agricultural products at the time of program implementation. Mr. Skeen. The original intent of the law is that once the program is established, it will become self-sufficient through user fees. Was it the intent of the law that AMS's costs to monitor and provide oversight to the program be included in those fees? Response. The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 allows for the collection of reasonable fees from producers, certifying agents and handler who participate in the organic program. We believe that the intent of the law is the same as our goal of recovering all costs of the program from fees charged. However, because the program is just beginning, we are uncertain of the number of applicants. With that in mind, we are unsure whether appropriations will be needed to offset some of the cost of the program over the next several years. Once the program is fully underway, we will reassess our ability to recover all costs from fees. Mr. Skeen. How much will it cost annually to carry out this program? Response. We expect the budget request of $1,,005,000 for FY 1998 will be sufficient to operate the program through issuance of the final rule. Mr. Skeen. How much do you expect to collect in fees? Response. The ultimate goal is that the program will become self- sufficient. Due to the uncertainly of the number of applicants and the fees that will be charged, we cannot provide an estimate of how much will be collected in the early phase of program operation. g.p.r.a. Mr. Skeen. GPRA, known as the Results Act, requires each executive agency to issue, no later than September 30, 1997, a strategic plan covering at least five years. In addition to a mission statement grounded in legislative requirements, the plans are to contain general goals and objectives that are expected to be outcome or results oriented (such as to improve literacy) as opposed to output or activity oriented (such as to increase the number of education grants issued). What progress is the agency making in developing its strategic plan, including defining its mission and establishing appropriate goals? Response. We published our first strategic plan on June 5, 1996. It includes an agency mission statement and establishes goals. Mr. Skeen. Has the agency identified conflicting goals for any of its program efforts? If so, what are the performance consequences of these conflicting goals and what actions--including seeking legislative changes--are the agency taking to address these conflicts? Response. We have not identified any conflicting goals. Mr. Skeen. Strategic plans must be based on realistic assessments of the resources that will be available to the agency to accomplish its goals. As you are developing your strategic plan, how are you taking into account projected resources that likely will be available-- especially as we move to a balanced budget? What assumptions are you making? How are you ensuring that your goals are realistic in light of expected resources? Response. Seventy-six percent of AMS' budget is financed from fees for mostly voluntary services. Our customers closely monitor the cost of our services. Therefore, our strategic goals are focused on improving services in fee programs as well as appropriated programs in a cost-effective and efficient manner without greatly increasing the resources needed. Generally, we should be able to operate within our FY 1998 budget request. Mr. Skeen. For Congress, the heart of the Results Act is the statutory link between agency plans, budget requests, and the reporting of results. Starting with fiscal year 1999, agencies are to develop annual performance plans that define performance goals and the measures that will be used to assess progress over the coming year. These annual goals are to measure agency progress toward meeting strategic goals and are to be based on the program activities as set forth in the President's budget. What progress have you made in establishing clear and direct linkages between the general goals in your strategic plan and the goals to be contained in your annual performance plans? OMB expressed concern last year that most agencies had not made sufficient progress in this critical area. Response. AMS' broad range of marketing-related activities are reflected in our necessarily broad goals. However, we have established linkages between these general strategic planning goals, our annual performance goals, and our budget activities. Mr. Skeen. More specifically, how are you progressing in linking your strategic and annual performance goals to the program activity structure contained in the President's budget? Do you anticipate the need to change or modify the activity structure to be consistent with the agency's goals? Response. The program activity structure in the President's budget is consistent with the agency's strategic goals. Mr. Skeen. Overall, what progress has your agency made--and what challenges is it experiencing--defining results-oriented performance measures that will allow the agency and others to determine the extent to which goals are being met? Response. We have had some difficulty in defining results-oriented performance measures because of the enormous customer base for services related to agricultural marketing--the whole marketing chain, from producers through processors, wholesalers, retailers, and consumers. However, we continue to work to define meaningful performance measures. It is a process of evaluation; as we learn, we will be able to make improvements. Mr. Skeen. If applicable, what lessons did the agency learn from its participation in the Results Act pilot phase and how are those lessons being applied to agency-wide Results Act efforts? What steps is your agency taking to build capacity (information systems, personnel skills, etc.) necessary to implement the Results Act? Response. AMS did not participate in the Results Act pilot phase. Mr. Skeen. The Results Act requires agencies to solicit and consider the views of stakeholders as they develop the strategic plans. Stakeholders can include state and local governments, interest groups, the private sector, and the general public,among others. Who do you consider to be your agency's primary stakeholders and how will you incorporate their views into the strategic plans? Response. AMS stakeholders include agricultural producers, food processors, wholesalers, retailers, distributors, importers and exporters, agricultural associations, consumers, food procurement officials for institutions, and other government agencies. Since our mission is to improve agricultural marketing, each activity has its own stakeholder(s). We have already begun to incorporate their views into our strategic plans. We sent surveys to over 16,000 customers from our Market News, Standards, Grading, and Certification, Commodity Procurement, Research and Promotion, and Fair Trade and Orderly Markets service areas, and received responses from nearly 27%. The survey questions were developed as customer service standards to help AMS determine whether it is meeting its customers' needs and expectations. We are using the results of the survey to establish a baseline that will help us to determine how to provide better service to our customers in the future. Mr. Skeen. For the Results Act to be successful, agencies with similar missions, goals, or strategies will need to ensure that their efforts are coordinated. What other federal agencies are you working with to ensure that your strategic plans are coordinated? What steps have you taken to ensure that your efforts complement and do not unnecessarily duplicate other federal efforts? Response. AMS is coordinating its strategic planning with other agencies in the Marketing and Regulatory Programs mission area. We are also working with the Food and Consumer Service and the Farm Service Agency on purchasing and delivery improvements for Section 32 commodities, and the Foreign Agricultural Service to ensure that our international marketing activities do to conflict with, or duplicate, their activities. Mr. Skeen. The Results Act requires agencies to consult with Congress as they develop their strategic plans. Since these plans are due in September, now is the time for agencies to begin the required consultations. What are your plans for Congressional consultation as you develop your strategic plan? Which Committees will you consult with? How will you resolve differing views? Response. All USDA Mission Areas/Agencies have prepared draft Strategic Plans which are currently being reviewed by an Under / Assistant Secretary (or other relevant official), the Senior Policy Staff and the Secretary, and will subsequently be reviewed by OMB. Upon completion of the review, the Department plans to provide copies of the Strategic Plan (including an overall Department wide Executive Summary and the Strategic Plans for individual Mission Areas/Agencies) to relevant congressional Committees. Thereafter, we will look forward to meeting with Members or Staff to discuss our Strategic Plan and to solicit their input and advice on refinements to that Plan. We plan to provide copies of the Department Strategic Plan to the following Committees: House Agriculture Committee; House Appropriations Committee; House Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee; House Government Reform and Oversight Committee; House Resources Committee; Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee; Senate Appropriations Committee; Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; and Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. Mr. Skeen. In passing the Results Act, Congress sought to fundamentally change the focus of federal management and decision making to be more results-oriented. Organizations that have successfully become results-oriented typically have found that making the transformation envisioned by the Results Act requires significant changes in what they do and how they do it. What changes in program policy, organization structure, program content, and work processes has the agency made to become more results- oriented? Response. Because of our heavy reliance on user-financing, we operate more like a business than most agencies so that we can provide cost-effective services. In the vast majority of our programs, our ability to continue operations depends solely on the earnings we generate, mostly from customers who are under no obligation to ``buy'' our services. Our corporate culture influences how we operate appropriated programs as well as user-funded activities. Under the Results Act, we are working to further strengthen our work processes to become more results oriented through our customer survey and business process reviews. Mr. Skeen. How are managers held accountable for implementing the Results Act and improving performance? Response. Managers are held accountable for improving performance through performance evaluation elements. Mr. Skeen. How is the agency using Results Act performance goals and information to drive daily operations? Response. AMS is already using its performance goals to improve daily operations. For example, to provide high quality service in a cost-effective manner, we have completed and are implementing the recommendations of business process reengineering studies of our market news, commodity procurement, meat grading, marketing order, and Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act programs. Also, to tailor and focus agency services to better facilitate strategic marketing of U.S. agricultural products in international markets, we are reorienting our market news, standardization and grading activities to include international as well as domestic markets. dairy marketing order consolidation Ms. Kaptur. The Department's November 1996 ``Preliminary Report on Order Consolidation,'' lists seven criteria for consolidation: overlapping route disposition; overlapping areas of milk supply; number of handlers in a market; natural boundaries; cooperative association service areas; features common to existing orders; and milk utilization in common dairy markets. How were the consolidation criteria developed? Was there a statutory basis of legislative history for them? Will these criteria be applied uniformly across the nation? Response. The authorizing legislation for the Federal milk order program does not contain criteria for determining marketing areas. The consolidation criteria we have suggested have been developed on the basis of knowledge acquired over the course of 60 years of administering the program. They reflect the market conditions that tend to make mergers necessary or desirable to maintain orderly marketing conditions. Following are detailed descriptions of the consolidation criteria for the record. consolidation criteria Overlapping route dispositions.--The movement of packaged milk between Federal orders indicates that plants from more than one Federal order are in competition with each other for Class I sales. In addition, a degree of overlap that results in the regulatory status of plants shifting between orders creates disorderly conditions in changing price relationships between competing handlers and neighboring producers. Overlapping areas of milk supply.--The location of a plant's milk supply indicates the competitive nature of the milk supply. The pooling of milk produced within the same procurement area under the same order allows for uniform pricing of producer milk. Number of handlers in a market.--Formation of larger-size markets is a stabilizing factor. Shifts of milk and/or plants between markets becomes less of a disrupting factor in larger markets. Also, the existence of Federal order markets with handlers too few in number to allow meaningful statistics to be published without disclosing proprietary information should be avoided. Natural boundaries such as mountains and deserts often affect the placement of marketing area boundaries.--Such barriers discourage movement of raw milk between areas, and generally reflect a lack of population (that limits the range of the consumption area) and lack of milk production. For the purposes of market consolidation, large unregulated areas and political boundaries are considered a type of natural barrier. Cooperative association service areas.--While not a criterion used initially to determine marketing area, cooperative membership may be an indication of market association. Given the need to consolidate orders, cooperative membership can provide additional support for combining certain marketing areas. Features common to existing orders, such as similar multiple component pricing payment plans.--Markets that already have agreed on similar regulatory provisions may have a head start on the consolidation process. Where different payment plans exist in markets suggested for consolidation, it will be necessary to determine a common payment plan for the consolidated order. Milk utilization in common dairy products.--Utilization of milk in similar manufactured products (cheese vs. Butter-powder) was considered. Ms. Kaptur. As you make your order consolidation decisions, what role will simplification of the orders play? Have you given consideration to proposals to base milk marketing regulation on where the processing plant is located rather than on where it sells its milk as a means to simplify administration, enforcement, and compliance with the consolidated orders? Response. Simplification of the orders is one of the goals of the consolidation process. In particular, the goal of simplification will be pursued in our effort to make the types of provisions common to all, or most, orders more uniform and easier to understand and administer. As the order areas become larger, it becomes more likely that plants will be regulated under the order for the marketing area in which they are located. In the first report on suggested consolidations, nearly all plants projected to be regulated under the suggested consolidated orders were located within the suggested marketing order under which they would be regulated. The report on suggested identical provisions contains a pool distributing plant definition that would regulate under a particular order any distributing plant located within the order's marketing area that otherwise meets the pooling requirements of its order, unless it has over 50 percent of its route dispositions in another order area. In addition, specialized plants that bottle primarily ultra-high temperature--UHT--products, which are widely distributed, would be regulated according to the marketing area in which they are located. Ms. Kaptur. What is the Department's position on bringing currently unregulated areas under regulation as part of this consolidation? Response. In the first report on suggested order consolidation, no non-Federally regulated territory was added to current order marketing areas if it would have the effect of regulating any currently unregulated handlers. In a number of the current orders there are unregulated areas currently enclosed by order marketing area, and unregulated areas between orders. These ``pockets'' are included in the resulting merged marketing areas only if their inclusion does not change the current regulatory status of a plant. The requirement to consolidate orders was not perceived by the Department as a mandate to regulate all currently unregulated areas. As the consolidation process proceeds, however, we have received requests to include currently-unregulated areas in consolidated orders from regulated handlers and producer groups who believe that they are disadvantaged by the existence of nearby competitors who are not subject to the same regulation. These proposals are being considered. farmers' markets Ms. Kaptur. It is my understanding that the biannual Public Market Conference which USDA sponsored has been eliminated. Why? Response. In 1996, AMS contributed to a Public Market Conference held in Philadelphia, PA, in cooperation with Project for Public Spaces, Inc. We have been communication with that organization concerning a prospective 1998 conference. Ms. Kaptur. Please describe your activities in the past fiscal year on public and farmers' markets. What new activities do you wish to take up in the next fiscal year? Response. Following is a list of active projects involving farmers', public or urban markets. We anticipate additional requests to be submitted for FY 1997 and do not have specific work plans developed for FY 1998 projects. Grove Arcade Public Market Project, Projected completion FY Asheville, NC. 1997. North Market Project, Columbus, OH........... Completed FY 1997. Reading Terminal Farmers' Market Study, Completed FY 1997. Philadelphia, PA. Merchant Development Program, Avenue Market, Projected completion FY Baltimore, MD. 1997. Asseessment of Delaware Direct Market Completed FY 1997. Operations, Customers Needs and Opinion. Alternative Market Development Study, Sea Underway. Islands, SC. Montgomery, State Farmers' Market Study, Completed FY 1997. Montgomery, AL. Boston Public Market Initiative, Boston, MA.. Underway. Farmers' Market Study, St. Paul, MN.......... Underway. Public/Farmers' Market Study, Camden, NJ..... Underway. California Farmers' Market Web Site Underway. Development. Findlay Public Market Project, Cincinnati, OH Underway. Direct Marketing Survey...................... Projected completion FY 1997. Ms. Kaptur. How are you promoting urban and rural linkages? Response. In recent years, the Wholesale Market Development Program has shifted its emphasis to include more public and urban markets relative to the traditional emphasis on wholesale markets. The Program includes wholesale, collection, farmers' and public markets in and near metropolitan areas which promote urban and rural linkages by studying the improvement of facilities enabling market access by the small- to medium-sized grower. Ms. Kaptur. What level of funding was provided for planning and development of new Farmers' Markets and Public Markets in FY 1997? What is proposed for FY 1998? Response. AMS costs are not accounted for on an individual project basis. However, in FY 1996, approximately one half of the overall Wholesale Market budget was spent on the planning and development of farmers markets and public markets. The remaining funds were used for the improvement of other market facilities, to correct distribution problems at facilities and operations, and the development of new technologies. The projects for FY 1997 have not yet been awarded, however, we anticipate the level of funding for these projects to remain fairly constant in FY 1997 and FY 1998. Variations in project allocations from year to year are based on the current opportunities available, and the number of requests or proposals submitted. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration livestock producers' complaints Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 149 of last year's hearing record showing the number of complaints received from livestock producers to include fiscal year 1996 actuals and fiscal year 1997 estimates. [The information follows:] Number of investigations by fiscal year 1994.......................................................... 2,301 1995.......................................................... 2,504 1996.......................................................... 2,265 1997 estimated................................................ 2,000 current statutes and grain facilities Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 152 of last year's hearing record showing the number of persons or companies who registered under current statutes and the number of grain facilities involved in export activities to include 1996. Response. The following table provides the number of persons or companies who registered under current statutes and the number of grain facilities involved in export activities: [The information follows:] U.S. GRAIN EXPORTERS REGISTERED UNDER THE USGSA ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Year No. of facilities registrants registered ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1991.......................................... 86 509 1992.......................................... 89 511 1993.......................................... 92 499 1994.......................................... 89 462 1995.......................................... 96 499 1996.......................................... 87 460 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ grain inspected and/or weighed Mr. Skeen. Update the tables that appear on pages 153 through 155 of last year's hearing record, showing the grains inspected and/or weighed for export by country of destination for fiscal year 1996. [The information follows:] [Pages 145 - 147--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] grain dust explosions Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 156 of last year's hearing record showing the number of explosions resulting from grain dust, including the number of deaths and injuries, to include fiscal year 1996. Response. The following table reflects the number of explosions resulting from grain dust: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Year Explosions Injuries Deaths ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1992................................ 7 6 1 1993................................ 4 4 1 1994................................ 17 27 1 1995................................ 10 6 2 1996................................ 15 26 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ exported grain complaints Mr. Skeen. Update the table that also appears on page 156 of last year's hearing record showing the number of complaints for exported grain that you received and the number of open cases to include fiscal year 1996 actuals and fiscal year 1997 figures to date. [The information follows:] COMPLAINTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ No. of Fiscal year complaints Files open ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1992.......................................... 21 0 1993.......................................... 50 0 1994.......................................... 30 0 1995.......................................... 28 0 1996.......................................... 20 0 1997 (to date)................................ 10 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Pages 149 - 151--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] heavy metal testing and analysis Mr. Skeen. Equipment for heavy metal analysis has been purchased and installed and testing and analysis programs for heavy metals in grain was to occur in two phases. Validation for cadmium and lead was to be completed by June 1996 with an initial survey of wheat samples by August 1996. Work on the second group of metals, mercury, arsenic, and selenium will begin as soon as the work on cadmium and lead is complete. What is the status of this project? Response. Our initial efforts focused on an analytical procedure called the slurry method. But the analytical results demonstrated this method was not appropriate, due to the variability of results within the grain samples and lack of sensitivity. Since then, efforts have been redirected, and we are now validating a microwave sample digestion procedure, to be used in conjunction with equipment already purchased, to detect and quantitate levels of lead and cadmium in grains. The microwave sample digestion procedure is automated, rapid, and provides the necessary sensitivity. Upon completing the validation of the method for lead and cadmium, a wheat survey will be conducted with an expected completion date of August 1997. Further evaluation of the microwave sample digestion procedure for mercury, arsenic, and selenium will continue in FY 1997. aflatoxin inspections Mr. Skeen. For the record, please update the table that appears on page 162 of last year's hearing record showing the number of aflatoxin inspections to include fiscal year 1996. Response. We are pleased to provide the following information for the record. Aflatoxin inspections Fiscal Years: 1992...................................................... 59,372 1993...................................................... 59,901 1994...................................................... 44,758 1995...................................................... 66,096 1996...................................................... 68,190 toll free hotline Mr. Skeen. In February 1995 your agency established a toll-free telephone number to receive violation reports. What is the cost of maintaining this hotline? How many calls did you receive in fiscal years 1995 and 1996? How many were investigated? Response. The cost of maintaining GIPSA's Hotline for reporting violations of the United States Grain Standards Act and Agricultural Marketing Act is $40.00 per month. During fiscal years 1995 and 1996, GIPSA personnel received several inquiries, and one violation report via the hotline. We investigated the violation reported. Our onsite investigation did not reveal facts substantiating the allegation that this facility violated our water prohibition regulations. poultry compliance complaints Mr. Skeen. Provide a table that shows the number of poultry compliance complaints received in fiscal years 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996. Response. The number of complaints received during fiscal years 1993 through 1996 are listed in the following table: Poultry complaints Fiscal year: 1993...................................................... 95 1994...................................................... 88 1995...................................................... 104 1996...................................................... 86 dealer/order buyer financial failures Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 163 of last year's hearing record showing dealer/order buyer financial failures to include fiscal year 1996. [The information follows:] DEALER/ORDER BUYER FINANCIAL FAILURES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No. of Total owed Recovery Percent Fiscal year dealer livestock Recovery from other total failures sellers from bonds sources recovery ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1990............................................... 15 $4,196,168 $655,700 $733,288 33 1991............................................... 16 2,723,204 499,174 158,700 24 1992............................................... 23 2,137,276 565,562 43,263 28 1993............................................... 17 2,663,023 494,249 12,000 19 1994............................................... 27 8,137,762 1,125,276 140,380 16 1995............................................... 15 1,699,739 350,452 77,684 25 1996............................................... 10 4,277,688 283,212 1,462,236 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- four-firm concentration ratio Mr. Skeen. Also, update the following table showing the four-firm concentration ratio for steer and heifer slaughter, boxed beef, sheep and lamb slaughter, and hog slaughter to include data for 1995 and 1996. Response. Following is an update table to include information requested for 1995. Data for 1996 is not available at this time. FOUR-FIRM CONCENTRATION IN MEAT PACKING REPORTING YEARS 1980-1995 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Steers Year and Boxed Hogs Sheep and heifers beef lambs ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1980........................ 36 53 34 56 1981........................ 40 57 33 53 1982........................ 41 59 36 44 1983........................ 47 60 29 34 1984........................ 50 62 35 49 1985........................ 50 62 32 51 1986........................ 55 67 33 54 1987........................ 67 80 37 75 1988........................ 70 79 34 77 1989........................ 70 79 34 74 1990........................ 72 79 40 70 1991........................ 74 79 42 77 1992........................ 78 81 44 78 1993........................ 80 83 44 75 1994........................ 81 86 44 76 1995........................ 81 84 46 72 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Note.--All figures for years 1980 through 1994 are based on firms' fiscal years as reported to GIPSA. Figures for 1995, except boxed beef, are based on calendar year Federally-inspected slaughter. auction market failures Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 164 of last year's hearing record showing the number of auction market failures, the amount owed for livestock each year, and the amount recovered from bonds and other sources during each year to include fiscal year 1996. [The information follows:] AUCTION MARKET FAILURES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No. of auction Total owed Recovery Recovery Percent Fiscal year market consignors from bonds from other total failures sources recovery ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1990............................................... 5 $820,664 $239,748 $135,228 46 1991............................................... 3 200,958 168,561 30,758 99 1992............................................... 11 567,927 457,367 55,528 90 1993............................................... 4 123,191 118,651 1,330 97 1994............................................... 6 476,606 274,882 0 58 1995............................................... 6 747,344 308,380 37 41 1996............................................... 3 343,508 220,123 0 64 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- livestock slaughter Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 164 of last year's hearing record, showing what percentage of the livestock that is slaughtered annually comes from captive supplies and/or forward contracts to include fiscal year 1995 actuals and fiscal year 1996 estimates. Response. Each year Packers and Stockyards Programs (P&SP) obtains a special report from the 15 largest steer and heifer slaughterers to determine what percentage of their slaughter needs are met using cattle obtained from packer feeding operations, forward contracts, and marketing agreements. The following table provides the data except for 1996, which is not yet available. STEER AND HEIFER SLAUGHTER ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total comm. Top 15 Forward Year slaughter firms contract Total \1\ (mil. (percentage (percentage) head) of total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1988........................................................... 28.1 84 10.1 19.1 1989........................................................... 26.2 90 11 22.4 1990........................................................... 26.7 87 8.2 18.9 1991........................................................... 26.5 90 5 17.2 1992........................................................... 26.3 92 7.8 19.5 1993........................................................... 26.6 94 4.9 17.4 1994........................................................... 27.6 96 4.5 20.5 1995........................................................... 28.7 94 4.5 21.1 1996........................................................... (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Includes packer-fed cattle acquired through forward contracts and marketing agreements. \2\ Not available. slaughtering and processing packers Mr. Skeen. Would you please update the table that appears on pages 164 and 165 of last year's hearing record showing the number of slaughtering and processing packers subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act to include fiscal year 1996. [The information follows:] SLAUGHTERERS AND PROCESSORS SUBJECT TO THE P&S ACT \1\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bonded Non-bonded Processing- Year slaughtering slaughtering only plants firms \2\ plants \3\ \4\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1986........................... 691 892 4,807 1987........................... 634 849 4,743 1988........................... 638 807 4,645 1989........................... 619 801 4,512 1990........................... 574 721 4,402 1991........................... 585 683 4,415 1992........................... 561 626 4,352 1993........................... 509 606 4,355 1994........................... 482 573 4,258 1995........................... 470 576 4,202 1996........................... 433 545 4,229 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Data are not available on the number of non-federally inspected, non- bonded slaughtering plants and processing-only plants subject to the P&S Act. \2\ Includes all firms operating federally-inspected (FI) and non- federally-inspected (NFI) plants that are bonded by the Packers and Stockyards Program, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA). The P&S Act requires firms with purchases of $500,000 or more to be bonded and file annual reports with GIPSA. Some firms with smaller volumes of purchases are voluntarily bonded and are included in this column, but do not file annual reports. \3\ This column is an estimate of the number of non-bonded slaughter firms (operating FI plants) subject to P&SP regulation that are not required to be bonded because they purchase less than $500,000 of livestock per year. Includes slaughtering plants that also do processing. May include plants operated by voluntarily-bonded firms included in the first column that are too small to file reports with P&SP, GIPSA. Excludes NFI plants. \4\ Firms that conduct processing-only operations are not required to be bonded. Excludes NFI plants. custodial accounts Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 165 of last year's hearing record showing the number of compliance audits conducted on custodial accounts, the number of markets with shortages, the total dollars involved, and the amount restored to include fiscal year 1996. [The information follows:] CUSTODIAL ACCOUNT COMPLIANCE AUDITS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No. of No. of markets Total Amount Fiscal year audits with amount of restored shortages shortages ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1993............................................................ 555 199 $7,207,073 $3,767,759 1994............................................................ 563 157 5,398,181 3,833,025 1995............................................................ 700 185 7,112,936 4,265,410 1996............................................................ 517 170 5,479,852 3,699,905 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- proper care and handling of livestock Mr. Skeen. At the time of last year's hearing, your agency was considering establishing guidelines for the proper care and handling of livestock under the provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act. What is the status of this proposal? Response. Proposed guidelines for the care and handling of livestock at stockyards were published in the Federal Register for comments in May 1996. As a result of the comments received and recent ruling by the Department's Judicial Officer concerning the handling of a disabled cow at an Arizona livestock auction, we are reviewing the proposed guidelines to determine an appropriate course of action. The Judicial Officer's decision states that nothing in the P&S Act is designed to prevent injury or suffering apart from the effect that the injury or suffering may have on competition, trade, producers, purchasers, consumers, or other persons the P&S Act is designed to protect. agency resources Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 165 of last year's hearing record showing the amount of funds spent on payment protection, livestock marketing, competition and conflicts-of-interest, meat marketing, scales and weighing, drug residues, and poultry to include fiscal year 1996. [The information follows:] AGENCY RESOURCES [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year-- -------------------------------------------- 1997 1994 1995 1996 (estimate) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Payment protection................................................. $4,129 $4,095 $2,651 $2,450 Livestock marketing................................................ 1,085 1,109 1,838 1,650 Competition........................................................ 485 197 919 1,300 Conflict-of-interest............................................... 245 250 306 300 Meat marketing..................................................... 222 192 73 75 Scales and weighing................................................ 628 843 682 700 Drug residues...................................................... 4 4 0 0 Poultry............................................................ 700 900 754 1,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- generic inspection certificates Mr. Skeen. The agency began developing a generic sample-lot inspection certificate in fiscal year 1994. The design work has been completed and separate programs to generate generic certificates for each of the 13 grains are required. At this time last year, a prototype wheat program was expected to be ready in December 1996 with completion of the remaining 12 grain specific programs planned for the third quarter of 1997. What is the status of this work? Response. GIPSA is on track with the generic certificate program. The wheat program was complete din October 1996. However, within the past year, GIPSA has identified two new ADP initiatives that interrelate with the certificate program such that it will have to meet a number of additional requirements, including: (1) Data entry of an Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) record, and (2) producing an ASCII file in a standard GIPSA format. The additional requirements will delay the completion date until March 1998. budget request Mr. Skeen. Provide a breakout, by item, of your fiscal year 1998 budget request to the Secretary, the Secretary's request to OMB, and the OMB allowance. Response. The following table reflects the breakout of GIPSA's fiscal year 1998 budget request: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Request to Line item the Request to OMB Secretary OMB allowance ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Standardization Activities....... $3,717 $3,552 $3,552 Compliance Activities............ 4,757 4,538 4,538 Methods Development.............. 2,912 2,783 2,783 Packers and Stockyards........... 15,390 14,849 14,849 -------------------------------------- Total, current law......... $26,776 $25,722 $25,722 Proposed Legislation............. ........... -15,401 -15,401 -------------------------------------- Net, GIPSA Budget.......... $26,776 $10,321 $10,321 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ other services Mr. Skeen. Provide a sub-object class breakout for object class 25.2, Other Services, for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998. Response. The following table reflects the breakout for object class 25.2: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year-- ----------------------------- 1996 1997 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Administrative support and statistical services performed by other Federal agencies................................. $1,129 $1,129 $1,581 Personnel and data processing by other Federal agencies......................... 187 202 262 Maintenance agreement on ADP Equipment.... 82 88 115 Training Tuition fees and other related training costs........................... 128 138 179 Applied and developmental research........ 228 246 319 Repair and alteration or maintenance of Equipment, furniture or structures....... 54 58 75 Miscellaneous services--covers publication notices advertising, and other noncontractual services.................. 189 204 265 All other services and overhead costs..... 381 411 533 ----------------------------- Total Object Class 25.2............. $2,378 $2,566 $3,329 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ soybean standards Mr. Skeen. The agency decided to defer action on amending the U.S. standards for soybeans to reduce foreign material grade limits until the industry has had an opportunity toreview and comment on the results of the ERS study on the costs and benefits of cleaning soybeans beyond current limits. At the hearing last year, you reported that the grain industry was reviewing the study findings. Has a final decision been made? If so, what was the decision? Response. We have decided not to change the foreign material limits for soybeans because the cost of change will outweigh the benefits. However, we believe the issue should remain open for discussion as genetically modified soybeans, which are resistant to herbicides, become available and acceptable to the soybean industry. These modified soybeans may offer the opportunity for producers to deliver lower foreign material soybeans in areas recognized for higher foreign material. Consequently, the cost of providing low foreign material soybeans may be reduced. alpha-amylase Mr. Skeen. Alpha-amylase is an enzyme that is produced as seeds begin the process of sprouting and can be an important indicator of quality in certain crops such as Soft Red Winter wheat. Last year GIPSA was preparing to conduct a small scale study to gather field data on the performance of the DT 60 instrument and obtain a larger database for determining what is an acceptable ST 60 alpha-amylase activity range in wheat. This testing was anticipated to be complete in July 1996. What is the status of this initiative? Response. DT 60 instruments were placed in the Portland, Oregon, and Stuttgart, Arkansas, Field Offices for evaluation purposes and to aid in the collection of comparative data--the alpha-amylase activity, the official Falling Number, and a visual determination of sprout damage. The data collection was completed in January 1997 and is now being evaluated. A report on the results of this testing is being prepared and should be completed by May 1997. Preliminary results indicate that there is a correlation between the Falling Number and alpha-amylase activity, and it should be possible to establish an alpha-amylase activity range similar to the Falling Number range. central filing systems Mr. Skeen. The latest data we have is that 19 states had applied for and received certification of their central filings systems for prenotification of security interests against farm products. Give us an update on how this system is working. Have additional states been approved? Response. There were no requests for certification of new state central filing systems during 1996. There is interest in allowing electronic filing of effective financing statements. This is addressed in the item below. There is also some interest in removing the signature requirement when the time period for an effective financing statement is extended. Mr. Skeen. For the record, describe the changes to the central filing systems regulations that are being made to comply with the 1996 Farm Bill. Response. Sections 662 and 663 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, modified the central filing program by allowing electronic filing of effective financing statements without the signature of the debtor, provided state law authorizes such a filing. An interim regulation to implement this change was published in the Federal Register on October 22, 1996. The final regulation is being cleared for publication. two-year study on wheat standards Mr. Skeen. You began a two-year study in February 1996 to determine if the wheat standards are current with respect to garlic tolerances. A preliminary report on the progress of the project is due in the first half of fiscal year 1997. What are the preliminary findings and recommendations of this study? Response. The researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign provided a progress report of their research in December 1996. The first 6 months of the project were focused on garlic collection across the soft wheat growing areas. Six grain elevators, 12 official agencies, and 5 soft wheat mills agreed to participate in the collection of garlicky wheat. Five hundred ninety-three wheat samples were collected. The second 6 months of the project were focused on the analysis of garlicky wheat and the effects of garlic on the milling process. The garlic analysis includes separation and classification of garlic and physical characterization of garlic. A preliminary evaluation of garlic cleaning equipment for two flour mills was also completed with the number of bulblets per kilogram for one mill being reduced from 3 to 2.5 after cleaning; while another mill did not show any garlic reduction. Preliminary milling tests using a Buhler laboratory mill showed that 5 percent garlic contamination could produce about 99 percent plugging, which reduced flour extraction from 61 percent to 57 percent. Since the study is not complete and only preliminary information is available, the project status report did not contain any recommendations. We do not expect any recommendations from the study until the economic impact analysis is completed after reviewing all available data. user fees Mr. Skeen. Approximately 62 percent of GIPSA funds are derived from mandatory and discretionary user fees. For the record, provide a list of these fees and indicate which are mandatory and which are discretionary. Response. The following table reflects a list of mandatory/ discretionary user fees: Canadian Grain Inspection--Discretionary; Inspection & Weighing--Export is mandatory, domestic is discretionary; Official Agencies--Discretionary; Rice Inspection--Discretionary; Commodity Inspection--Discretionary; and Registration--Mandatory. investigations Mr. Skeen. Please explain why the number of investigations under Packers and Stockyards performance goals, measures, and indicators decreases from 2,265 in fiscal year 1996 to 1,900 in fiscal year 1998. Response. As the livestock industry becomes more concentrated, our resources are primarily being used to investigate firms and individuals that conduct the most business and subsequently have the greatest impact on the industry. Larger firms require more time and resources to investigate. While the total number of investigations will decrease, the overall percentage of the industry investigated annually will increase. inspection and weighing reduction Mr. Skeen. You are projecting to reduce inspection and weighing services from $43,207,000 and 550 staff years in fiscal year 1997 to $43,092,000 and 508 staff years in fiscal year 1998, a reduction of $115,000 and 42 staff years. Shouldn't the dollar value associated with a 42 staff year reduction be much larger? Response. It should be noted than the dollar figure for this account is only a ceiling. In fiscal year 1996, actual obligation for this account was $34,306,943. The staff years for FY 1997 and FY 1998 are just estimates. We are hopeful that grain exports will increase in FY 1997 and our staff years are close to the 550 figure. travel increase Mr. Skeen. Why do you project a 43 percent increase in your travel budget from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 1998? Response. The travel estimate in the table for fiscal year 1998 is too high. We have determined that funds should have been projected for personnel costs and benefits rather than for travel. Upon further review, we have determined that travel for fiscal year 1998 should have been projected at $1,550,000 which includes an increased allowance to cover travel costs for additional personnel to conduct investigations of anticompetitive practices in response to the recommendations of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Agricultural Concentration. The remaining $222,000 should have been included in personnel costs and benefits for these additional personnel. advisory committee Mr. Skeen. Provide a list of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Agricultural Concentration. Response. The Committee presented 55 recommendations. Eleven of the recommendations A.1. through A.9., B.9. and B.11. deal specifically with GIPSA programs. All recommendations, broken into categories, are provided below: A. Antitrust and regulatory actions The first category of recommendations dealt with actions that should be taken within the framework of existing laws and policy for increased monitoring and enforcement of antitrust and regulatory policy. A.1. Antitrust enforcement of current regulations under the P&S Act should be stepped up. Any new mergers and consolidations that have the potential to reduce competition should be quickly challenged by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Agriculture. If any consolidations or strategic alliances are challenged, the contracting parties should be required to show that existing laws are not being violated, and that further concentration will enhance, and not diminish, competitiveness within the livestock industry. A.2. Section 202 of the P&S Act, which deals with unfair trade practices, should be enforced to the letter of the law. A.3. Congress should appropriate sufficient resources to USDA to allow aggressive pursuit of violations of the P&S Act and address problems in their incipiency. A.4. As to enforcing the laws as they now exist, the Secretary should immediately undertake a review of current enforcement practices and publicly report the results of that review. A.5. The USDA should expand the private right of action to parties believing themselves to be damaged by violations of the P&S Act and its regulations. A right to attorney's fees should be provided. A.6. GIPSA should investigate lamb supply contracts for their impact on markets and market access for participants without a supply contract. A.7. The USDA should ask the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice for a report (confidential) about their findings to date on the question of packer concentration, including the lamb investigation of the 1990's. If their disclosure reveals the need for an investigation, it is recommended that an investigation ensue. A.8. Congress should amend the P&S Act to provide the Secretary with the same administrative and enforcement authority in all poultry products as in red meat, including all growers who raise and care for live poultry for another entity. A.9. Price differentiation should only be permitted with respect to differences in quality, verifiable differences in procurement costs (including differences in cost due to quantity), and time of delivery. B. Market-based disclosure policy The second category of recommendations addressed needs for improvements in collection and reporting of market information. B.1. As part of a new reporting process, contract or formula pricing premiums and discounts, based on carcass merit, should be captured and reported. B.2. Research should be conducted on the reasons for and sources of economic difference in the value of market hogs--size of load, volume of annual business, timing of delivery, arranged time of delivery, plant operation economies, leanness, genetic line, etc. B.3. Timely, accurate price reporting should be required for all packer livestock transactions. Reporting must include accurate, verifiable data on all captive supply. Responsibility should be equal upon both parties to the transaction, and penalties should be imposed for late, inaccurate, or misleading information. B.4. Specifically, the Committee recommended the following packer reporting: numbers of cattle purchased in the cash market on a daily basis; all captive supplies committed for delivery at the start of each week; numbers of forward-contracted cattle in all out-months; Canadian or Mexican cattle committed for delivery at the start of each week; numbers and prices of cattle slaughtered on a daily basis; and exports on a weekly basis. For lambs, packer reporting of captive supplies for delivery is recommended at the start of each month. B.5. For hogs, research and reporting should provide, on a quarterly or greater frequency, the proportion of farm-packer sales which are formula-priced by State or region. B.6. A computerized decision tool which compares packers' base prices and pricing grids should be developed. B.7. The Committee strongly encouraged the Secretary to assist the beef industry in the development of a negotiated ``grid'' pricing structure, with the base price and spreads determined by competitive bidding between buying interests no more than seven days prior to shipment. AMS Market News Service should report a value matrix for cattle on a weekly basis. B.8. The producer price reporting pilot project for market hogs in Missouri should be expanded to include other States or regions to represent a broader participant base. The committee recommended working with industry to establish a standard leanness measurement as the industry's benchmark--such as the Fat Free Lean Index, and exploration of ways to make differentiated prices more available nationwide and understandable to producers. B.9. GIPSA should continue its long-standing work of monitoring the accuracy of carcass measurement equipment and devices. B.10. USDA should develop a standardized list of premium or discount categories for carcass merit purchasing, and an additional list of premium or discount categories based on market arrangements (e.g., forward contracts, marketing agreements). Consideration should also be given to reporting ranges as well as averages for each appropriate premium/discount category for livestock. B.11. The Committee strongly supported GIPSA's work with packers to review carcass merit pricing systems and changes to systems before their implementation, to assure fairness. Because some mistrust still exists between packers and producers, the feasibility of third-party oversight of post-slaughter carcass evaluation should be reviewed. B.12. The Committee recommended that the volume of boxed beef price reporting be increased beyond the current 36 percent of total steer and heifer boxed beef reported by the AMS Market News Service in 1995. It should include reporting of forward sales beyond the 10-day delivery period already reported, branded products, sales delivered as price basis to a forward contract, sales of less than carlot volume, and formulated sales. In addition to the currently reported choice/select price differential there should be a report of a price differential for USDA Prime and upper two-thirds of USDA Choice. B.13. USDA should encourage the development of a close-trimmed boxed beef futures contract as an additional means of price discovery for the livestock industry. B.14. Line-of-business profits should be reported, for both packers and feedyards. B.15. Import and export data for meat and meat products, including both price and volume information, should be made more timely and more accurate. Imports of feeder and fed cattle entering the United States should be reported, and information should be compiled and published regarding all exports of beef, veal, pork, lamb, chicken, turkey, and products thereof. The information should be reported within one week after the end of the week during which exports occurred. B.16. Better retail price reporting should be developed to more accurately reflect the farm-to-retail price spread. C. Vertical linkages In the third category, the Committee presented several recommendations as alternatives that would enhance equitable sharing of risks and rewards in vertical linkages: C.1. Assistance should be provided to parties negotiating a contract or other form of alliance to make sure all are informed of risks and rewards. C.2. Rules to ``level the playing field'' in negotiations should be established, such as identifying, in advance, actions that would be deemed exploitative or inappropriate behavior. C.3. Rules should be established to require information be shared on costs, margins, and other relevant data, but with precautions to avoid development of overly-burdensome bureaucratic procedures that would discourage economically beneficial linkages. C.4. Standardized terminology should be developed that would place contractor and contractee on even ground in terms of knowing what is being agreed to. C.5. Consistent and effective rules for animal feedlots should be implemented that address water, air pollution, and odor problems, with producers allowed flexibility in their choice of available technology to attain mandated results. C.6. The USDA should initiate an effort to explain to producers the terms of various contracting forms, and provide guidance to producers as to how to make their decisions on participation. C.7. The USDA should research and publicize what is required to qualify for contracts and marketing arrangements, so that producers can be assured of being a part of future marketing arrangements. D. Cooperatives and bargaining The Committee made several recommendations for fostering cooperative/collaborative behavior among producers to effectively address many of the concerns producers have about the marketplace: D.1. The right of producers to organize under the Capper-Volstead Act must be preserved, but the processor or integrator should retain the right to deal individually with the grower whose performance does not meet the standards of the contract. D.2. Some instrument for redress of producer grievances will likely be eventually required in large integrated production/marketing systems. D.3. Congress should amend the Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967, to require handlers to engage in good-faith negotiation with producer cooperatives, without discrimination. As with D.1., above, the integrator should retain the right to deal individually with the grower whose performance does not meet the standards of the contract. D.4. Current laws should be reviewed to assure sufficient safeguards to protect the bargaining rights of contract grower associations to set terms and conditions of production contracts. E. Other areas The Committee made a few additional recommendations concerning other issues related to its charge: E.1. The USDA should take aggressive action to end inequities in meat inspection, including taking specific steps to promote the ability of state-inspected packing plants to sell in interstate commerce if they meet Federal standards of inspection. E.2. The USDA and U.S. Trade Representative should speed up efforts to vigorously pursue and eliminate the EU ban on U.S. hormone-treated beef. E.3. The USDA should immediately begin research for new technology to categorize beef by tenderness and implement instrument grading to measure other quality indicators. E.4. Field testing and adoption of newly developed technologies should be facilitated. E.5. The former Farmers Home Administration, now part of the Farm Service Agency, and the lending arm of the Farm Credit Administration, including the Bank of Cooperatives, should focus their lending resources on family-size operations. Expansion should not be imposed an a condition for credit if continuation of the existing scale is justified. USDA lending authority should not be used to subsidize large-scale operations. E. Recommendations on rail transport The Committee also made recommendations that focused on ways to alleviate rail transportation problems, including those associated with rail car shortages due in part to consolidation in the railcar industry. F.1. The government loan period could be extended from the current 9 months up to 15 months to move grain into the market over a longer period of time. F.2. As an alternative, loan maturity periods could be staggered so that one-third of each producer's loans could mature at the end of 6, 9, 12, and 15 months with different prices or interest rates as an incentive to release the grain at various times. F.3. Economic analysis is needed to determine the risks and returns associated with various financial tools such as hybrid cash contracts, futures contracts, and options to suggest how and when each could be used. F.4. A major educational effort is needed to educate producers, shippers, and buyers on how and when to use the tools. F.5. A process is needed to provide transportation outlook information to producers, shippers, and buyers. F.6. USDA's transportation experts should publish monthly rail shipper survey information. F.7. Private shippers, the academic community, and the USDA should suggest and coordinate research activities, and the USDA should become actively involved with the National Grain Car Council in the Surface Transportation Board (STB). F.8. A mechanism is needed to permit arbitration of transportation disputes. F.9. The USDA should provide input and advice to assure: Accurate information on local grain shipping issues and problems; Recommendations for needed changes under the STB authority; Studies and advice for shippers that wish to purchase rail lines or improve facilities and infrastructure; Information on access to all sources of public and private funds for infrastructure and facility purchase and upgrading; and Advice to the Secretary of Agriculture on the need for low- interest-rate loans or bonds. F.10. The USDA should encourage the establishment of a market- sensitive car allocation system, allowing the freight market to trade at premiums and discounts to tariff rates, but without precluding the railroad common carrier obligation for a portion of its fleet. F.11. The USDA should recommend the STB pursue the following when reviewing a potential merger: Determine if there is sufficient competition for a fair and equitable merger; Require that the merged carrier, if a merger is approved, offer acceptable service and performance standards, with penalties for nonperformance; and Determine whether a proposed merger will have an adverse effect on competition among rail carriers in the region. F.12. The STB should be allowed to limit rates in market areas where there is little or no competition. F.13. The new STB fee system should be evaluated for its potential impacts on small and medium-sized shippers that wish to petition the STB. F.14. The USDA should establish a grain shippers' hotline in the STB for reporting on railcar supply problems, and the STB should make weekly reports to the USDA on the number and nature of reports and complaints to the hotline. legal actions Mr. Skeen. How many legal actions are pending which require economic and statistical analysis by the agency? Response. GIPSA currently has two legal actions and four major investigations pending which will require economic and statistical analysis. competition and industry structure Mr. Skeen. Provide a detailed breakout of how the $1,595,000 requested increase for packer competition and industry structure would be used. Response. The additional funds requested for fiscal year 1998 are needed for GIPSA to more aggressively pursue anticompetitive practices related to industry concentration. We have increased the frequency of anticompetitive investigations during the past two years, but this has come at the direct expense of programs designed to protect individual producers from unfair practices and provide financial protection. The additional fund will be used to recruit and integrate more economic, statistical, and legal expertise into investigative units that will conduct investigations involving anticompetitive practices, but not at the expense of our other vital enforcement responsibilities. In FY 1998 we will conduct major anticompetitive practice investigations and detailed analyses in the slaughter steer and heifer, slaughter hog and slaughter cow industries and develop detailed evidence where incidences of anticompetitive practices are disclosed. Additional personnel with economic, statistical, and legal expertise will be critical to completing this work. advisory committee Mr. Skeen. One of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Agricultural Concentration was that the Secretary be provided the same administrative enforcement authority for poultry as currently exists for red meat. Do you need legislation for this to occur? Response. Yes, we need legislation enacted in order to have the same administrative authority for poultry as currently exists for red meat. USDA will submit proposed legislation to amend the P&S Act to provide administrative authority over poultry. Mr. Skeen. Another recommendation of the Committee has lead to an investigation of the lamb industry. When do you expect to complete this investigation? Response. This investigation is currently under way. The analysis of the data will be completed by the end of calendar year 1997. The final conclusion of the investigation will depend on the outcome and results of the data analysis. increase for poultry compliance Mr. Skeen. Provide a detailed breakout of how the $750,000 requested increase for poultry compliance would be used. Response. The additional $750,000 requested for poultry compliance is necessary if the Agency is to initiate and perform in-depth compliance investigations, that directly affect grower settlements. For the past several years the Agency's poultry work has been restricted to investigation of complaints received from poultry growers. These additional funds would allow the Agency to investigate many of the contractual concerns being iterated by contract poultry growers throughout the Southeast. The funds will be used to place additional investigators in the field to conduct broad industry-wide investigations. This will enable us to examine the effects of practices that impact grower performance and pay. These practices encompass such areas as probation programs that restrict grower payment, grower comparisons as the means of determining a grower's pay, mandatory equipment changes on newer housing, and the requirement that binding arbitration must be used to settle disputes. license fees Mr. Skeen. You state that the user fee proposal for license fees is consistent with the Administration's efforts to shift funding for programs, which benefit identifiable groups, to user fees. You go on to state that the beneficiaries of license fees are the livestock producers and poultry growers, firms who are subject to regulation under the provisions of the P&S Act, and consumers. If these are the identifiable groups who benefit from license fees, who will pay the user fees and how much will each pay? Response. We propose that license fees be paid by those firms subject to the P&S Act. There are currently 9,200 market agencies and dealers registered that would be subject to the licensing requirement. In addition, there are 1,350 stockyards, 6,000 slaughtering and processing packers, 224 poultry processors, and 6,500 meat distributors, brokers, and dealers that would also be subject to the licensing requirement. We are currently exploring two concepts for structuring a fee schedule. The first is based on a basic licensing fee with additional fees for each branch and for each type of operation with minimum and maximum fees. The minimum annual fee will likely be about $500 and the maximum will likely be between $5,000 and $7,500. The second concept would be based on the volume of livestock marketed or product handled within similar minimum and maximum fees. Mr. Skeen. Provide a breakout of what the one-time cost of $3,000,000 to convert to license user fees is for. Response. The funds will be needed to maintain ongoing operations during a transition period that will be required to promulgate the necessary implementing regulations and begin collecting the license fees. It would also fund the leave liability accumulated under the appropriated program. Without appropriated funding, these costs would become an immediate liability to users. livestock marketing unrecovered losses Mr. Skeen. How much of the amount of uncovered losses in the livestock marketing chain is dealer failures? Response. During fiscal year 1996, unrecovered losses from dealer failures amounted to $2,532,240. The total unrecovered loss from dealer failures for the 5-year period beginning with fiscal year 1992 is $14,361,174, or 75.9 percent of the total owed sellers of livestock at the time of failure. This results, on average, in unrecovered losses of $2,872,235 per annum. canadian oat standards Mr. Skeen. Your agency plans to publish a proposal after the review of the Canadian oat standards to determine if harmonizing the standards would facilitate the international marketing of oats. What is the status of this review? Response. We have initiated the review of the oat standards, and we are working closely with the Canadian Grain Commission. Our first efforts are to determine which standards and procedural differences exist to determine the impact of changes to harmonize the oat standards. To measure this impact, we are actively collecting oat samples from the United States and Canada and grading these samples under both standards. This analysis will provide the basis to determine the impact of any change, if adopted. We are also working with the U.S. oat processors to better determine their needs to assess the value of the U.S. oat standards. rice standards Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the development of more market oriented rice standards and cost-effective inspection programs? Response. Our review of the rice standards indicates the U.S. rice market is satisfied with the standards the way they are written. The rice industry has not indicated a change is needed at this time; however, we are working with the industry to refine our procedures and analytical interpretations to better reflect the industry's market needs. We have also initiated a field-based action team to address rice inspection concerns and recommend improvements to our inspection program. GIPSA is continuing its dialogue with the rice industry to assure the standards and procedures address their future marketing needs. research Mr. Skeen. What were the results of the research project to assess the differences between the U.S. official test weight method and the metric method specified by the International Standards Organization for wheat? Response. The research project showed that the equation currently used to express U.S. test weight results in metric units (kilograms per hectoliter) consistently gives lower values than what would be obtained using the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) method. Two revised conversion equations, one for Durum wheat and one for all other wheat classes, were developed to reduce the differences between the two methods. The new equations will be used to express U.S. test weight for wheat in metric units beginning May 1, 1997. world health organization Mr. Skeen. For the record, provide a list of the World Health Organization's established guidelines for select elements in grains. Response. The World Health Organization has proposed the following draft guidelines: Proposed draft guideline levels for cereals, pulses, and legumes Contaminant Mg/kg Arsenic........................................................... 0.5 Cadmium........................................................... 0.1 Mercury........................................................... 0.05 Lead.............................................................. 0.5 pesticide data program Mr. Skeen. What is your agency doing in support of the Pesticide Data Program this fiscal year? Response. GIPSA is responsible for developing sampling plans and collecting wheat and soybean samples to be analyzed for a variety of pesticide residues. In fiscal year 1997, GIPSA will collect approximately 350 wheat samples and initiate the collection of soybean samples. The majority of wheat samples will be analyzed in fiscal year 1997. A total of 600 soybean samples are to be collected, but due to harvest times, both the collection and the analysis of the soybean samples will start in fiscal year 1997 and continue into fiscal year 1998. The AMS is working with EPA this fiscal year. AMS is requesting $9.8 million to fund the Pesticide Data Program for FY 1998. niacin in corn-soy blends Mr. Skeen. You state in the budget justifications that GIPSA scientists are developing a method for determining niacin in corn-soy blends. How do you coordinate the research you do with the research that ARS does in this area? Response. Methods development by GIPSA scientists generally is based on research previously conducted by ARS scientists or methods published in the scientific literature. As with any methods development, the research objective dictates the research approach. Due to the differing objectives of ARS and GIPSA, available methods often do not meet the specific needs of GIPSA and, therefore, GIPSA scientists must modify methods to satisfy specific program needs. For example, in developing a method to measure protein, GIPSA scientists modified existing methods to adapt to the grain inspection laboratory. GIPSA scientists look for precision, accuracy, safety, and speed. Our scientists share data and equipment and often discuss experimental approaches for solving problems. ARS scientists usually devote their resources to development of new methods and approaches to analyzing quality factors in grain. computer imaging Mr. Skeen. Provide a brief description of the status of using computer imaging for grain inspection including the role you see computers playing in the future of the program. Response. Computer imaging is a critical technology for developing objective determinations to replace subjective visual grain grading. This technology is relatively new, but many researchers are developing algorithms to assess grain quality. The Agricultural Research Service, the Canadian Grain Commission, and many universities and private companies are working to improve the technology and make it both effective and efficient for grain inspection. Research has been successful in numerous grain applications, and some commercial instruments are available to perform grain or seed inspections. However, the speed and discriminatory capabilities of available instruments fall considerably short of what is needed for routine grain grading. Acquiring and processing the images needed for grain grading is extremely difficult. Computer imaging is computationally intensive. The most powerful personal computers available today are inadequate to process images of grain as rapidly as a human inspector. The human inspector's eyes provide three-dimensional information, such as texture, that is extremely difficult to capture using electronic cameras. The human inspector can physically manipulate grain kernels to observe all surfaces. These challenges will undoubtedly be overcome in time. Computers and computer imaging will certainly play a major role in grain inspection within the next ten years. electronic odor-sensing instruments Mr. Skeen. What were the results of the study conducted with ARS on the use of electronic odor-sensing instruments? Response. The feasibility study regarding electronic odor-sensing instrumentation is not yet complete. Several instrument manufacturers are working with ARS to test prototype instruments using the sample set GIPSA provided. Early results obtained on one instrument were not veryencouraging. The manufacturers are performing further research to optimize their sampling and sensing methods for grain before analyzing the test sample set. Result are expected later in fiscal year 1997. violations Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the 16 violation cases that were pending at the end of fiscal year 1996? Response. At the end of fiscal year 1996, sixteen cases involving alleged violations of the USGSA or the AMA were pending further action. Alleged violations in these cases included deceptive practices, altering official documents, grading discrepancies, and export quality specification discrepancies. During fiscal year 1997, nine of the sixteen cases were closed with appropriate action taken by GIPSA (e.g., warning letters, informational letters, cautionary letters, etc.). Currently, seven cases from fiscal year 1996 are pending. foreign travel Mr. Skeen. One of the international monitoring program functions is to travel to other countries to explain the agency's inspection and weighing procedures. How many countries did the staff travel to in fiscal year 1996 and how many are planned for fiscal year 1997? What is the total cost of this travel? Do the participating countries contribute to these costs? Response. In fiscal year 1996, the staff traveled to 14 countries (27 trips) to explain the Agency's inspection and weighing procedures, attend meetings with international government officials, attend conferences, and respond to grain quality discrepancies. In fiscal year 1997, the staff has traveled to 10 countries, and travel to approximately five other countries is planned at this time. In fiscal year 1996, the total cost of this travel was $31,440 to GIPSA, and $49,836 to other USDA agencies and cooperator groups. Total cost for fiscal year 1997, to date, has been $1,269 to GIPSA and $20,286 to other USDA agencies and cooperator groups. Participating countries have not contributed to these costs directly to GIPSA, through other USDA agencies, or through cooperator groups. restriction of competition priorities Mr. Skeen. I read in the budget justifications that any information which indicates a possible restriction of competition is investigated on a priority basis. For the record, tell the Committee how this priority system operates. Response. The Agency conducts investigations of subject firms and individuals based on a combination of factors. Some of the factors include the size of the firm, their impact to the industry, nature of the possible violation, etc. Possible violations such as restriction of competition, especially if we receive a specific complaint, are a very high priority for the Agency and will be investigated immediately. performance measures under gpra Mr. Skeen. Packers and Stockyards was selected as a pilot project for performance measurements under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 for fiscal years 1995 and 1996. Give us an overview of this project and its results. Response. The Scales and Weighing Branch was selected by the Department and approved by the Office of Management and Budget to serve as a GIPSA pilot project. The primary goal is to have accurate weights in subject transactions. The objectives of this program are to assure that entities operate scales that are correct within current requirements, and that weighing practices are investigated to assure accurate weights. We developed goals, objectives, and measures of performance. Our computer program was modified to automate data gathering and reporting criteria. Quality control measures were included in the Performance Plan and the Performance Report to monitor the reliability of the data obtained. We have continued to develop and refine methods of prioritizing and directing resources to areas of greatest economic impact. The accurate scales compliance level for 1995 was 88.2 percent, and for 1996 was 88.6 percent. The accurate weighing compliance level for 1995 was 89.9 percent, and for 1996 was 89.4 percent. industry comments on rulemaking Mr. Skeen. The agency expects to propose an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit industry comments in the area of feed weighing, live bird weighing, and growing contracts that base grower payment on comparison of other growers' performance in the first half of fiscal year 1997. What is the status of this initiative? Response. The advance notice of proposed rule making was published in the Federal Register on February 10, 1997. The comment period will close on May 12, 1997. unfair competitive practices investigation Mr. Skeen. An investigation into unfair competitive practices was made during fiscal year 1996 of the procurement of slaughter cows in the Northwest. The investigation revealed an alleged arrangement entered into between two livestock dealers for the purpose, and with the effect, of restricting competition and thereby controlling the prices for slaughter cows at auction markets. What was the outcome of this investigation? Response. As a result of this investigation an administrative complaint has been issued charging the two livestock dealers with restricting competition in the marketing of slaughter cows in the Williamette Valley of Oregon by entering into an arrangement for the purpose, and with the effect, of controlling prices for slaughter cows. An administrative oral hearing is scheduled for August 26, 1997, in Portland, Oregon. Mr. Skeen. Once an administrative complaint is issued by your agency, what actions are taken next? Response. After an administrative complaint has been issued and signed by the Deputy Administrator, it is filed with the Hearing Clerk's office. The Hearing Clerk sends the complaint to the respondent by certified mail. The respondent is given an opportunity to settle the complaint informally by agreeing to a consent decision or may request a formal administrative hearing on the charges. If a hearing is requested, the case will be heard by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that will issue a ruling on the case. Both parties have the right to appeal the ALJ's decision to the Department's Judicial Officer, who is the final deciding authority for USDA. The respondent may appeal the Judicial Officer's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals. A press release is issued at the time a complaint is initially issued and when the case is concluded. Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the investigation underway in the Texas Panhandle? Response. We have obtained detailed procurement data from the four major steer and heifer slaughter plants in the Texas Panhandle. The data time-frame includes 16 months (February 1995 through May 1996) of procurement data, over 37,000 individual transactions and over 6 million head of cattle. The outcome of the investigation depends on the results of the economic and statistical analysis, which is currently underway. The initial analysis should be completed by the end of FY 1997. Mr. Skeen. What was the outcome of the administrative hearing scheduled for the week of January 17, 1997, in Kansas City, Missouri, involving charges against IBP, inc. of giving preferential treatment to a select group of feedlots in Kansas? Response. The final week of testimony from government and IBP is scheduled for the week of April 14, 1997. The outcome of the case will be determined by the Administrative Law Judge presiding over the hearing. staff-year in canada Mr. Skeen. Where in Canada is the one staff-year located? Response. The staff-year is located in Montreal. new user-fee structure Mr. Skeen. What has the reaction by industry to the new inspection and weighing system user fee structure? Response. The comments we have received from industry have generally been positive. Industry likes the idea of paying only for those inspection services requested. Under the old, straight hourly rate system, all inspection costs were incorporated into one hourly rate. Now industry has an opportunity to control their costs through the utilization of varied lengths of contracts (3-month, 6-month, and 1-year contracts) and noncontract hourly rates, along with the ability to choose what specific tests and services they need. intermarket tracking system Mr. Skeen. What were the findings and recommendations of the pilot intermarket tracking system for barge movements on the Mississippi River to compare origin and destination quality results? Response. The intermarket barge tracking system, begun approximately one year ago, has been a catalyst to increase communication between origin and destination offices within the official inspection system. We believe this communication is a vital component in our efforts to meet our customers' needs for corresponding origin and destination inspection results. Information gained through the intermarket program has stimulated sample exchanges between offices to determine the cause the resolve differences. Origin inspection offices and inspection agencies are now able to know how their analyses compare with destination results. The pilot program has taught us the difficulty of matching origin and destination results with a permissive service. Because not all barges are inspected at origin and destination, we have learned that positive matching of inspection results can be difficult and time consuming. However, we believe this type of information is extremely valuable in determining the quality of service as perceived by our customers, and we plan to continue exploring ways to gather this information. electronic networking Mr. Skeen. Your agency is beginning the process of electronically networking its official agencies with its field offices and headquarters. What is the total cost and time frame of this initiative? Response. GIPSA hopes to have most of the 65 official agencies networked with the official system by March 1, 1998. GIPSA is putting out a directive that will spell out the hardware and software requirements for an official agency to become part of the FGIS network. FGIS plans to work with those agencies where the requirements may delay their joining the network. GIPSA estimates that the total GIPSA cost will be approximately $50,000 to implement, with a yearly support cost of $30,000. adp costs Mr. Skeen. How much did GIPSA spend on ADP hardware and software purchases and related contractual support in fiscal years 1995, 1996, and estimates for 1997? [The information follows:] SUMMARY REPORT ON ADP PURCHASES AND CONTRACTUAL SUPPORT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year-- -------------------------------------- 1995 1996 (Est) 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hardware Maintenance............. $37,665 $33,590 $53,398 Software Maintenance............. 50,497 27,101 26,240 Hardware......................... 594,451 298,743 450,609 Software......................... 77,467 89,266 104,746 Contractor Support............... 371,541 207,354 30,000 -------------------------------------- Total cost................. $1,131,621 $656,054 $664,993 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ organizational effectiveness Mr. Skeen. Provide a brief description of the initiatives GIPSA pursued in fiscal year 1996 to improve service delivery and organizational effectiveness. Response. In fiscal year 1996, GIPSA pursued several initiatives to improve service delivery and organizational effectiveness, as follows: GIPSA's Technical Services Division (TSD) consolidated functions performed at the Commodity Testing Laboratory (CTL) located in Beltsville, Maryland, with the quality assurance and quality control programs at the Technical Center in Kansas City, Missouri, in April 1996. The consolidation of TSD and CTL has improved customer service and established a single point of contact for field customers. The new structure has provided a flexible organizational structure to meet service opportunities and provides increased uniformity in reporting data and information. GIPSA is implementing an enhanced quality assurance and quality control program to ensure the quality and accuracy of inspection results nationwide. The new program will include a balance of national and localized monitoring. A greater emphasis will be placed on proactive actions to prevent problems from occurring rather than reacting to problems once they have occurred. Work on this program continues and implementation is scheduled for fiscal year 1997. GIPSA is developing a telecommunications network that will allow electronic mail and daily data sharing between all offices within the official inspection and weighing system. Among other things, the network will allow GIPSA to create a national grain quality database that will have many uses, including providing a dynamic picture of nationwide grain trends and allowing timely responses to potential problem areas. GIPSA's target is to achieve 100 percent linkage of all offices in fiscal year 1998. GIPSA has developed an investigation and case tracking system which will allow the Agency to track regional and industry-wide investigations, thus increasing efficiencies for the Agency and customers alike. reengineered quality assurance and control program Mr. Skeen. It is stated in the testimony that in fiscal year 1996 GIPSA began implementing a reengineered quality assurance and quality control program for the official grain inspection system to ensure the quality and accuracy of inspection results nationwide. Please describe this program in further detail. Response. The program focuses on both ability and performance of the official system's inspectors, with both local control and national oversight. A handbook explaining the program was finalized and issued in October 1996. The system is centered around front-line inspectors sending samples of their determinations to the appropriate local quality assurance specialists for verification of their grading ability, and the local quality assurance specialist randomly reviewing samples previously inspected by front-line inspectors to determine their actual performance. Local control of the program is provided to our field office managers so that they may tailor many of their activities to meet the challenges facing inspectors in their geographic area. However, a national supervision plan with uniform sample selection is also a vital part of the overall program. Data form the national supervision plan will be used to provide headquarters with the national oversight necessary to identify performance problems between offices for immediate action. oig's review Mr. Skeen. When will the IG's review of current enforcement practices under the P&S Act be complete? Response. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the Department of Agriculture completed a review of GIPSA's enforcement activities under the P&S Act on February 26, 1997. The OIG concluded that ``GIPSA has the authority to investigate anticompetitive practices in the meat packing industry and has a credible record at handling traditional investigations into fraud and unfair business dealings. In order to more aggressively pursue anticompetitive practices related to industry concentration, GIPSA needs to place more of its resources in regional offices, redirect its staff efforts, increase the number of economists, integrate legal expertise into its investigations, and consult with OGC as cases are started.'' oig's finding and recommendations Mr. Skeen. What are you doing to comply with the IG's findings and recommendations regarding concentration in the livestock and meatpacking industries? Response. GIPSA recognizes the need to place more resources in the field and is currently preparing a restructuring plan that will consolidate regional offices, place more resources in the field, and integrate more economic, statistical, and legal expertise into the investigative process. gpra progress Mr. Skeen. GPRA, known as the Results Act, requires each executive agency to issue, no later than September 30, 1997, a strategic plan covering at least five years. In addition to a mission statement grounded in legislative requirements, the plans are to contain general goals and objectives that are expected to be outcome or results oriented (such as to improve literacy) as opposed to output or activity oriented (such as to increase the number of education grants issued). What progress is the agency making in developing its strategic plan, including defining its mission and establishing appropriate goals? Response. In fiscal year 1996, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) developed a 5-year strategic plan to help guide the Agency into the next century. GIPSA's mission is to facilitate the marketing of livestock, poultry, meat, cereals, oilseeds, and related agricultural products, and promote fair and competitive trading practices for the overall benefit of consumers and American Agriculture. The Agency's general goals are as follows: General Goal I: Ensure that programs are cost-effective and responsive to markets served. General Goal II: Ensure that the credibility of programs is unquestionable. General Goal III: Ensure that GIPSA employees are highly-skilled professionals providing quality customer service. General Goal IV: Harmonize customers' expectations with GIPSA authority and capabilities. conflicting goals Mr. Skeen. Has the agency identified conflicting goals for any of its program efforts? If so, what are the performance consequences of these conflicting goals and what actions--including seeking legislative changes--is the agency taking to address these conflicts? Response. No. GIPSA has not identified any conflicting goals for any of its program efforts. resources Mr. Skeen. Strategic plans must be based on realistic assessments of the resources that will be available to the agency to accomplish its goals. As you are developing your strategic plan, how are you taking into account projected resources that likely will be available-- especially as we move to a balanced budget? What assumptions are you making? How are you ensuring that your goals are realistic in light of expected resources? Response. GIPSA's goals are consistent with projected resources. However, to make specific programs fully cost-effective, as requested in the Administration's budget, additional resources are needed to develop the procedure to allow the industry to file reports electronically with the Agency, provide the Agency with the means to conduct detailed investigations and analyses in selected market areas, and enhance the Agency's poultry compliance activities. The Paperwork Reduction Act signed by the President on May 22, 1995, establishes guidelines for development of simpler reporting requirements for businesses. In connection with the signing of this law, the President has instructed agencies to provide for electronic submission of reports. To implement this Presidential initiative, an increase of $225,000 is requested. An increase of $1.6 million and 20 staff years are needed to provide the Agency with the means to conduct detailed investigations and analyses in selected market areas on a timely basis. It would also enable GIPSA to meet its responsibility to foster fair and open competition and guard against deceptive and fraudulent practices which affect the movement and price of meat animals and meat food products. Additional resources are also needed for poultry compliance activities. In the past, funding and staffing levels have prevented the Agency from addressing the current problems and issues in the poultry industry. An increase of 10 staff years and $750,000 will allow the Agency to operate on other than a complaint driven basis and allow the number and scope of compliance investigations to increase. More in- depth compliance investigations will increase the Agency's ability to identify and address practices in the industry that may be unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive before the practices escalate. This will allow GIPSA to more effectively counsel poultry growers when they have complaints. direct linkages Mr. Skeen. For Congress, the heart of the Results Act is the statutory link between agency plans, budget requests, and the reporting of results. Starting with fiscal year 1999, agencies are to develop annual performance plans that define performance goals and the measures that will be used to assess progress over the coming year. These annual goals are to measure agency progress toward meeting strategic goals and are to be based on the program activities as set forth in the President's budget. What progress have you made in establishing clear and direct linkages between the general goals in your strategic plan and the goals to be contained in your annual performance plans? OMB expressed concern last year that most agencies had not made sufficient progress in this critical area. Response. GIPSA's strategic plan is structured so that each of the Agency's strategic goals and objectives includes details about supporting tasks and performance measurements. The Agency is currently preparing its annual performance plan for fiscal year 1999, which will provide even greater detail about these supporting tasks and performance measures. Mr. Skeen. More specifically, how are you progressing in linking your strategic and annual performance goals to the program activity structure contained in the President's budget? Do you anticipate the need to change or modify the activity structure to be consistent with the agency's goals? Response. GIPSA has developed a matrix which clearly shows the relationship between the Agency's annual performance goals, strategic goals, and five budgetary line items: Packers and Stockyards, Standardization, Compliance, Methods Development, and Grain Inspection and Weighing Activities. As a result, GIPSA does not anticipate the need to change or modify the Agency's budgetary line items to be consistent with the Agency's goals. performance measures Mr. Skeen. Overall, what progress has your agency made--and what challenges is it experiencing--defining results-orientated performance measures that will allow the agency and others to determine the extent to which goals are being met? Response. As part of the planning process, GIPSA has identified annual performance measures that will allow the Agency to quantitatively evaluate performance. In the grain program, in Fiscal Year 1998, GIPSA will begin measuring the performance of the new quality assurance and control system for accuracy and consistency; the average cost of oversight per metric ton of grain inspected; the average cost of export grain inspection per metric ton; the number of new tests developed and improved methods and calibrations implemented; the number of inspection automation ventures initiated by the Agency; and the number of official agencies which are linked via the new telecommunication network. For the Packers and Stockyards Program, GIPSA has developed an investigation and case tracking system which will allow the Agency to track regional and industry-wide investigations. GIPSA will also develop and implement a system to electronically receive reports from the industry. pilot plans Mr. Skeen. If applicable, what lessons did the agency learn from its participation in the Results Act pilot phase and how are those lessons being applied to agency-wide Results Act efforts? Response. The Scales and Weighing Branch of GIPSA's Packers and Stockyards Program is a pilot in the Results Act pilot phase. This pilot project has provided the Agency with a greater understanding of the GPRA and how the GPRA will assist the Agency in strengthening its planning and measurement processes. Participation in the pilot phase has reinforced the importance of, and need for, accurate and current information in achieving the performance goals outlined in the Agency's annual performance plan. The pilot project has also given the Agency first-hand experience in developing and evaluating outcome measures and a better understanding of the difficulties involved in moving from input/output measures to outcome-based measures. As the Agency has progressed through the pilot phase, it has become increasingly apparent that GIPSA's outcome measures are still evolving. building capacity for implementation Mr. Skeen. What steps is the agency taking to build the capacity (information systems, personnel skills, etc.) necessary to implement the Results Act? Response. GIPSA is taking a number of steps to build the Agency's capacity to implement the Results Act and to meet our customers' needs. GIPSA currently is developing a telecommunications network that will allow all of the Federal offices and State and private agencies that comprise the official grain inspection and weighting system to communicate electronically and share data on a daily basis. This network will allow GIPSA to create a national grain quality database that will provide a dynamic picture of nationwide grain trends and further enhance the responsiveness and accuracy of the official system. GIPSA is automating the export inspection statistical shiploading plan, also known as Cu-Sum. This will improve the efficiency of the official system by minimizing manual data collection and calculations, and by permitting direct data sharing with customers and remote GIPSA offices. GIPSA has developed an investigation and case tracking system which will allow the Agency to track regional and industry-wide investigations. GIPSA will also develop and implement a system to electronically receive reports from the industry. As GIPSA develops its information systems, the Agency also is concurrently providing employees with developmental opportunities to ensure they have the skills and knowledge needed to effectively use these new systems. All inspectors have received training in statistical process control, and numerous employees have received training in customer service and team problem-solving techniques. GIPSA recognizes that the integration of automation into the Agency's business processes also means that all aspects of employees' work will become increasingly interconnected and interdependent. Interdisciplinary teams that cross- cut traditional organizational boundaries, and that bring together a diversity of skills and perspectives, will be the key to GIPSA's success in continuously improving the Agency's programs, policies, operations, and work environment. stakeholders Mr. Skeen. The Results Act requires agencies to solicit and consider the views of stakeholders as they develop the strategic plans. Stakeholders can include state and local governments, interest groups, the private sector, and the general public, among others. Who do you consider to be your agency's primary stakeholders and how will you incorporate their views into the strategic plans? Response. GIPSA's primary stakeholders are the producers, buyers, and sellers of livestock, meat, poultry, cereals, and oilseeds. The input of these stakeholders was essential in the preparation of GIPSA's strategic plan and will be essential in developing future annual performance plans and strategic plans. The Agency maintains open communications with our stakeholders via meetings, educational exchanges, surveys, and other available forums. GIPSA is developing tools to solicit our stakeholders' input on program performance. For example, the Agency recently completed a comprehensive survey of customers of the official inspection and weighing system. GIPSA is using the data to quantitatively assess customer satisfaction in terms of the key factors identified in the Agency's strategic goals and objectives: timeliness, accuracy, consistency, cost-effectiveness, responsiveness, and professionalism. This quantitative assessment will allow GIPSA to further measure and improve the national inspection and weighing system's performance this year and in the future. In addition, GIPSA's field and regional offices distribute, on an ongoing basis, a customer comment card which provides the Agency's customers with a quick, convenient way to provide feedback about the professionalism, courteousness, responsiveness, clarity, objectivity, and impartiality of the Agency's employees. The Agency uses all stakeholder feedback in reviews of the Agency's strategic goals and objectives and to continue to improve the quality of service delivery. duplication of federal efforts Mr. Skeen. For the Results Act to be successful, agencies with similar missions, goals, or strategies will need to ensure that their efforts are coordinated. What other federal agencies are you working with to ensure that your strategic plans are coordinated? What steps have you taken to ensure that your efforts complement and do not unnecessarily duplicate other federal efforts? Response. The three agencies within the Department's Marketing and Regulatory Programs (MRP) mission area--GIPSA, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)--have developed a mission area strategic plan. As the plan demonstrates, each agency is unique in its mission and function, but there are continuous interactive opportunities within the mission area. Whereas the strategic goals relate to broad directions set by the leadership and the combined management teams of GIPSA, AMS, and APHIS, they will be implemented through general objectives set forth by each individual agency. These objectives indicate that there are many opportunities for shared responsibility. For example, the MRP Customer Services Team, supplies GIPSA with administrative, financial, and personnel support. GIPSA's success in delivering programs and services hinges directly on the Agency's ability to obtain these services in a timely, responsive manner. As a result, GIPSA and MRP Customer Services Team have developed a close supplier-customer relationship. In all instances, efforts have been, and will continue to be, made to eliminate duplicative tasks. GIPSA also works closely with other Federal agencies. Within the Department, GIPSA has developed close working relationships with the Foreign Agricultural Service and the Agricultural Research Service to respond to issues of interest to international customers. This includes concerns about Tilletia controversa (Kuhn), also known as TCK smut, Karnal bunt, and other sanitary and phytosanitary issues that may arise. Outside of the Department, GIPSA cooperates with the Department of Justice's Anti-Trust Division, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Small Business Administration on investigative matters. congressional consultation Mr. Skeen. The Results Act requires agencies to consult with Congress as they develop their strategic plans. Since these plans are due in September, now is the time for agencies to begin the required consultations. What are your plans for congressional consultations as you develop your strategic plan? Which Committees will you consult with? How will you resolve differing views? Response. All USDA Mission Areas/Agencies have prepared draft Strategic Plans which are currently being reviewed by an Under/ Assistant Secretary (or other relevant official), the Senior Policy Staff and the Secretary. Upon completion of the review, the Department plans to provide copies of the Strategic Plan (including an overall Departmentwide Executive Summary and the Strategic Plans for individual Mission Areas/Agencies) to relevant Congressional Committees. Thereafter, we will look forward to meeting with Members or Staff to discuss our Strategic Plan and to solicit their input and advice on refinements to that Plan. We plan to provide copies of the Department Strategic Plan to the following Committees: House Agriculture Committee; House Appropriations Committee; House Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee; House Government Reform and Oversight Committee; House Resources Committee; Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee; Senate Appropriations Committee; Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; and the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. change for results Mr. Skeen. In passing the Results Act, Congress sought to fundamentally change the focus of federal management and decision making to be more results-orientated. Organizations that have successfully become results-orientated typically have found that making thetransformation envisioned by the Results Act requires significant changes in what they do and how they do it. What changes in program policy, organization structure, program content, and work process has the agency made to become more results- orientated? Response. GIPSA's organizational structure and business processes are under review, and further changes are possible. With regard to changes in organizational structure, GIPSA's Technical Services Division (TSD) consolidated functions performed at the Commodity Testing Laboratory (CTL) located in Beltsville, Maryland, with the quality assurance and quality control programs at the Technical Center in Kansas City, Missouri, in April 1996. The consolidation of TSD and CTL improved customer service and established a single point of contact for field customers. The new structure has provided a flexible organizational structure to meet service opportunities and provides increased uniformity in reporting data and information. GIPSA has developed an investigation and case tracking system which will allow the Agency to track regional and industry-wide investigations, thus increasing efficiencies for the Agency and customers alike. GIPSA is in the process of implementing an enhanced quality assurance and quality control program to ensure the quality and accuracy of inspection results nationwide. The new program will include a balance of national and localized monitoring. A greater emphasis will be placed on proactive actions to prevent problems from occurring, rather than reacting to problems once they have occurred. Work on this program continues and implementation is scheduled for fiscal year 1997. GIPSA also continues to develop a telecommunications network that will allow electronic mail and daily data sharing between all offices within the official inspection and weighing system. Among other things, the network will allow GIPSA to create a national grain quality database that will have many uses, including providing a dynamic picture of nationwide grain trends and allowing timely responses to potential problem areas. GIPSA's target is to achieve 100 percent linkage of all offices in fiscal year 1998. managers' accountability Mr. Skeen. How are managers held accountable for implementing the Results Act and improving performance? Response. In the spirit of the Results Act, the three agencies within MRP are working together to evaluate and redesign the mission area's performance evaluation process. In conjunction with the mission area's work in this area, GIPSA is developing a proposal to pilot test a redesigned performance appraisal system within the Agency. The pilot would be predicated on the multi-rater assessment concept and would incorporate the Agency's annual performance measures and strategic goals into the performance appraisal process. use of results act Mr. Skeen. How is the agency using Results Act performance goals and information to drive daily operations? Response. As a result of the Agency's focus on results, increasing automation, and the commensurate increase in available data, GIPSA's focus will continue to shift from performing specific analyses to evaluating system performance and identifying improvement opportunities that benefit service providers. The integration of automation into the Agency's business processes also means that all aspects of GIPSA's work have, and will, become increasingly interconnected and interdependent. Interdisciplinary teams that cross-cut traditional organizational boundaries and that bring together a diversity of skills and perspectives will be the key to the Agency's success in continuously improving daily operations, programs, policies, and the Agency's work environment. Other examples of the Agency's progress include: development of an employee idea hotline; strengthening of the Agency's partnership efforts with State Departments of Agriculture and private inspection entities; and enhancement of outreach efforts to customers. All employees are encouraged to use information gathered from customer surveys and comment cards to strengthen daily communications with and service delivery to the Agency's customers. concentration Ms. Kaptur. Please describe your activities to help farm producers deal more effectively with increasing concentration in the meatpacking industry. What additional activities are you planning to take up with the increase you requested for FY 98? Response. A major initiative of the Agency is to ensure the current level of concentration in the meatpacking industry is not deleterious to competition and packers are not engaging in any practices that have the effect of diminishing competition. The additional funds requested for fiscal year 1998 are needed for GIPSA to more aggressively pursue anticompetitive practices related to industry concentration. The additional resources will allow us to integrate more economic, statistical, and legal expertise into investigative units that conduct investigations involving anticompetitive practices and to step up the number of regional and industry-wide investigations. The funds will be used in 1998 to conduct major anticompetitive practices investigations and detailed analyses in the slaughter steer and heifer, slaughter hog, and slaughter cow industries. This work will require additional personnel with economic, statistical, and legal expertise. Ms. Kaptur. Is the focus of your activity strictly the red meat industries? Do you have staff looking into concentration in the poultry industry? Describe your activities to assist contract poultry growers deal with increased concentration in the industry. Response. GIPSA is concerned about the level of concentration, in both red meat and poultry. At the regional level, however, there is concern that the poultry industry may enable integrators to use their market strength to the detriment of contract growers in some areas. The additional $750,000 requested for poultry compliance is necessary if the Agency is to initiate and perform in-depth compliance investigations that directly affect grower settlements. For the past several years, the Agency's poultry work has been restricted to investigation of complaints received from poultry growers. These additional funds would allow the Agency to investigate many of the contractual concerns being iterated by many contract growers. The funds will be used to place additional investigators in the field to conduct broad industry-wide investigations. This will enable us to examine the effects of practices that impact grower performance and pay. Michael V. Dunn--Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, Marketing and Regulatory Programs Michael V. Dunn was sworn in as Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Marketing and Regulatory Programs on Dec. 28, 1995, after being confirmed by the full Senate on Dec. 22 as assistant secretary and member of the Commodity Credit Corporation board of directors. Dunn manages the three U.S. Department of Agriculture agencies responsible for many aspects of the marketing, protection, quality and transportation of the nation's food, feed and fiber supply. Those agencies are the Agricultural Marketing Service, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. Prior to this appointment, Dunn served as Acting Under Secretary for Rural Economic and Community Development at USDA. He was also Administrator of USDA's Farmers Home Administration Before joining USDA in November 1993, Dunn was vice president of the National Farmers Union, in charge of its Washington operations. Prior to that, he worked for Senator Patrick Leahy on the Senate Agriculture Committee. He is a former commissioner of the Iowa Development Commission and was executive director of a regional planning and economic development district. He also served as a city official in his hometown of Keokuk, Iowa and as Midwest director for USDA's Farmers Home Administration from 1977 to 1981. [Pages 175 - 492--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Wednesday, March 19, 1997. NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE WITNESSES JAMES R. LYONS, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT PAUL W. JOHNSON, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE GARY A. MARGHEIM, ACTING ASSOCIATE CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE THOMAS A. WEBER, DEPUTY CHIEF FOR MANAGEMENT, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE LAWRENCE E. CLARK, DEPUTY CHIEF FOR PROGRAMS, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE CAROLE JETT, ACTING DEPUTY CHIEF FOR SOIL SURVEY AND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE FEE BUSBY, DEPUTY CHIEF FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE STEPHEN B. DEWHURST, BUDGET OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Mr. Skeen. The Committee will come to order. This afternoon we have the final USDA 1998 budget hearing. The Natural Resources Conservation Service has the honor of being the last agency, and one of the most important, I might add. At the table representing conservation programs are Jim Lyons, the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment; and Paul Johnson, the Chief for the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Jim, we have your statement, which will be included in its entirety, in the record. We'd greatly appreciate it if you'd briefly summarize it, and we'll get on with the last agency that we're going to deal with. Maybe we'll dig up the money in the meantime. Mr. Lyons. Very good. Well, does that mean we get our fair share plus what's left over? That would be alright? Mr. Skeen. Depends on what you say fair is? Opening Remarks by Under Secretary Lyons Mr. Lyons. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's always a pleasure doing business with you. I'm of course, accompanied today by Paul Johnson, the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service; and Steve Dewhurst, who's in charge of the Policy and Budget shop, at the Department of Agriculture. As you know, Mr. Chairman, NRCS is an agency with a long and very successful history of work on the landscape, with farmers and ranchers, local communities, and more and more with urban and suburban residents, trying to address their conservation and their natural resource management concerns. A number of things have, I think, added to our success as of late. And that's what I wanted to address today and focus on, in terms of our budget request for fiscal year 1998. The critical question, I think, given the new rules and responsibilities that we have in implementing the new conversation tools in the 1996 Farm Bill, is what resources does it take with today's changing technologies and challenges, for NRCS to be able to work effectively and in partnership with the conservation districts and the other federal, state and local partners that we work with? Of course, not only to produce food and fiber, which is a critical part of the role we play in the domestic and the international economy, but also, the role we play in producing clean water, in maintaining productive and high quality soils, and promoting improvements in wildlife habitat, and many of the other environmental benefits that come from the work we do on the landscape. What does it take to help America's private lands fulfill the promise that Paul outlined in a booklet I hope you've had a chance to see, ``Geography of Hope?'' These are the key questions we had in mind in putting together our budget, and I'd like to highlight some of that now. We believe this budget, structured and constrained as it is due to our joint commitment to balance the budget by 2002, answers a lot of those questions. The budget retains its emphasis on Conservation Operations as the key to getting conservation on the landscape. We are asking for increases to cover some of our pay costs, and in particular, to increase the level of work we're going to do on private grazing lands, to a program we call the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative. We are seeking to increase the rate at which we convert operations that we now have, to geographic information systems. And also, to enhance our ability to provide watershed based planning assistance, which is critically important as we start to look at the landscape in its entirety. It's through Conservation Operations that we put people on landscape, who are able to work with conservation districts throughout the country, to work on natural resource concerns and the challenges that we face. And it will be through Conservation Operations we anticipate seeing thegreatest benefit from, the locally led conservation initiative that we have undertaken. It is also through Conservation Operations that we'll do the critical work of implementing the conservation compliance and swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. NRCS' locally led initiative will also do something else. It will help us guide and shape, to the fullest possible extent, every USDA conservation program activity at the state and local level. That's our intent with the Small Watersheds Programs, the new EQIP Program; the rules for which soon will be issued, with the Conservation Reserve Programs, continue to sign-up or buffer and filter strips, which we think will do a great deal to address water quality concerns throughout the nation. And in particular, to focus on some related issues like threats to salmon in the Pacific Northwest and to other water quality concerns. The Wetlands Reserve Program, the Forestry Incentives Program, plus the WHIP Program, which we discussed at length with Chairman Cochran yesterday, who authored that program and the Farmland Protection Program. All these programs are either up and running or are close to it. We're excited about the ability to put together this conservation tool kit, if you will, and put people out on the landscape, to help work with land owners, to apply those tools, to get the best conservation we can for the dollars we have to invest. Another prime example of a program that we think has been very effective is the RC&D Program. You note in the budget this year, that there is an $18 million increase for support to watershed councils and related interests. We'd like to work with you in that particular area, Mr. Chairman. We think there is value in increasing investment in RC&D's. We also think though, it's critically important that RC&D's have the technical support that's necessary from conservation districts and from NRCS field staff, to get the job done. The two have to be in place in order to be successful. One of things I think that's so amazing and exciting about what we're doing and what NRCS is doing, is that we're doing it through and consistent with our philosophy of a voluntary approach to conservation. The more I work at this, Mr. Chairman, the more I'm amazed, and frankly, grateful that other agencies, which have, albeit different responsibilities, whether it's protecting endangered species or fish, or working with us on other roles on the landscape, more and more they look at NRCS with envy because of our ability to work directly with land owners, providing incentives, assistance, and guidance in getting good conservation on the landscape. And I think it's that kind of partnership that's critical to the success we've realized so far, and would be critically important to the successes we realize in the future. The greatest conservation challenge this nation will face, Mr. Chairman, is the conservation on the private lands. That's the issue that Paul highlighted in the ``Geography of Hope.'' And it's an issue that the Secretary addressed as he gave a keynote speech Monday, at what's called the North American Wildlife Natural Resources Conference, which is the largest professional conference of its kind. USDA is uniquely positioned with the tools we've gotten in the 1996 Farm Bill, and with the support you've provided us in recent years, and hopefully will in fiscal year 1998, to get out there and apply conservation on the landscape that represents 70 percent of America. We're excited about the opportunities. We're up to the challenges and hopefully, with your support, Mr. Chairman, we'll do even a more effective job in years to come. We appreciate the support you provided us so far, and we look forward to working with you in the future. [Clerk's note.--Mr. Lyons' prepared statement appears on pages 670 through 704. Biographies of Mr. Lyons and Mr. Johnson appear on pages 668 through 669. The budget justifications appear on pages 705 through 853] Mr. Skeen. Thank you very much. Paul Johnson, we've enjoyed reading your book, and I think we're going in the right direction. I think your philosophy is really getting back down to the real business of conservation work. You've outlined it very well. Do you have anything you'd like to add? Mr. Johnson. As usual, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here. Mr. Skeen. We don't want you at a loss for words. opening remarks by mr. johnson Mr. Johnson. The ``Geography of Hope,'' by the way, is the work of a whole agency and the people we serve and we're trying to capture in that, the feelings that people have across this country, who do work on their private land day in and day out. On the way up here today, I mentioned to Steve Dewhurst, that we were the last ones here and was it worth coming? His response was, they always listen to the last one. So, don't leave, I'm not done. In fact, in trying to figure out what to say that would influence you, I thought the best thing to say is, you need to know you've got the best staff in all of Congress. So, if that doesn't influence this process---- Mr. Skeen. They appreciate that. We have no argument there. Mr. Johnson. Well, first of all, we have four new deputy chiefs since the last time I was here. We have Larry Clark, who is now Deputy Chief for Programs; Tom Weber, Deputy Chief for Management; Carole Jett, Deputy Chief for a new arena that we felt really needed emphasis and that's Soil Survey and Resource Assessment. We don't want to leave Soils behind as we become a Natural Resources Conservation Service. Mr. Skeen. Absolutely not. Mr. Johnson. And then, Fee Busby, who is our new Deputy Chief for Science and Technology. We also have a new Acting Associate Chief, Gary Margheim, who has been with this agency for a long, long time. As you know, Pearlie Reed was asked to take up the Assistant Secretary job. And so, we have Gary on now as the Acting Associate Chief. Mr. Skeen. I met Pearlie yesterday, I believe. Mr. Johnson. Yes. We'll miss him a great deal. It'll take four Gary's to make up for it. But he'll learn fast. Mr. Skeen. We're proud of him. Mr. Johnson. This is my fourth hearing before you, And it seems like a life time. But it's, as you look back on it--not because of you. Mr. Skeen. We know what you mean. Mr. Johnson. I should stop now. Mr. Skeen. We have the same feeling from up here sometimes. Mr. Johnson. Yes, I know. The first two years were the toughest. Mr. Skeen. So, you're doing great. Mr. Johnson. Anyway, we wanted to mention a few of the things that have gone on in the last four years. As you know, we've restructured the agency. We have a whole batch of new state conservationists and regional conservationists. We want you to know that they are a fine bunch. Our agency does not pick people out of the air. But they come up through the system and all of these people have worked from the ground on up through the system. We're very proud of our people. As you've heard me say over and over again, we're an agency that is filled with very good people. It really is a national treasure; the expertise that we have. We have depth, and we have strength. But we continue to upgrade our skills. I think a good example of that is what we've done just this last year in the grazing lands arena. As you know, we stepped out a year or two ago with a very strong support of the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative. And I'd cite for you just a half a dozen things that we've done in that arena, to give you an example of how our agency continues to grow and build its expertise. We have more than 100 new grazing land specialist positions within the agency today, than we had a year ago. Fourteen new states now have grazing land specialists, that didn't have them a year ago. We have over 330 nationwide, that are focusing on grazing lands. We trained over 800 people last year in grazing lands techniques, all the way from range land to pasture land work. We have 3,000 additional grazing land owners receiving assistance on their lands, than we've had in the average of the last three to four years. So, we think that we've made great strides there. There's a terrific demand out there for that. If we had more people we'd do more. But we're working at it. We have over 60 special projects going on in grazing lands across the country today. Marketing and outreach is part of every one of our regions now, to make sure that land owners know that we have these services available and would like to work together with them. A good example was in my home town newspaper. Just recently, I picked up a copy of it. They had their Soil Conservation Week in a special section. A good share of that was about grazing lands issues. I've never seen that before, for a dairy area. But there were a number of examples of intensive rotational grazing and things like that. So, it is moving along and our people are building on the strength that we have, and I think, getting better at it very fast. We continue to try to move a higher percentage of our people into the field. Although we've lost an awful lot of people, we're trying our best to do that. As part of that, we're also continuing to revamp our information technology, so that those that are in the field don't have to sit behind computers a good share of their time. Although I can't tell you we're where we need to be, we are moving in that direction. I think partnerships have never been stronger than they are today. And a good example is with the new CRP sign-up and the information that we're getting back from across the country. Probably never before have we delivered a Federal program with so many groups helping out. We've got people coming in donating time in the office, from state agencies, to other federal agencies, to nonprofit groups. The wildlife groups, for example, are providing help, and a number of other groups. So, I think, at least from my experience, and that goes back many, many years with the soil conservation movement, I've never seen such participation and such partnership. We also have just established a new partnership with the Wildlife Habitat Council, which is a group of corporate America, to try to get them to pay more attention to their corporate lands. We're working together with them. We now have a new effort working with urban people, trying to bring some of the agricultural practices into the urban areas, but on a much smaller scale. We're doing that for two reasons. One is to try to get people to understand agriculture better. But secondly, to break down these barriers between urban and rural and get people to recognize, that even in your suburban backyard, you can do some of the things that we're doing on agricultural land, such as mulching, and composting, and the establishment of small wet areas for wildlife, that sort of thing. On the other programs, as Jim mentioned, we are implementing them. Farmland protection is implemented and is off and running. I would like to highlight an issue there though. As we travel around the country and talk to our people, I think there's more and more concern developing about farmland protection and landscape protection, as we see much of our American landscape being divided up into smaller and smaller pieces and sprawled, spreading out from our urban areas. I think it's an issue that we need to spend some time thinking about. I think the American Farmland Trust has a report coming out tomorrow. And I think we all ought to take a look at it. But beyond that even, what's happening in the West even, with many of the ranchers being split into small pieces, and ranchers, I think, are being--are very concerned about that. And I think we all ought to be. I don't know where we should go with it. But we'd like to work with you on that issue. Conservation compliance, which began in 1985, was fully implemented by 1995. Our numbers show that we're holding our own. We wish we could continue to reduce soil erosion, but given the freedom to farm legislation and uncertainty in the market conditions, the fact that we are holding our own and we're not slipping backwards, I think is a good sign. We did a mini status resource inventory of our statistical assessment of erosion on crop land. Our numbers are showing that we're holding right where we were a year ago, when we did the same study. So, I think that it's good in that we haven't slipped. But we need a renewed effort, I believe, to keep going in the right direction, because we certainly have a ways to go. Our State Technical Committees are up and running. And the experience in that process has been a good one. I think we have a lot more people sitting at the table working together on how to make these programs work and how to tiethem together with state and local programs and programs that nonprofits can bring to the conservation effort, as well. As Jim mentioned, locally led conservation is on it's way. And it's interesting to see it develop. We have many different ideas. In 50 states, we have 50 different mind sets. And even within those, as you know, there are different groups. And so, our conservation districts are experimenting with a number of ways to try to get the community more involved, set some goals for themselves, and then use our programs to move forward on it. As we mentioned to you, the ``Geography of Hope'' is out, and it's getting very good play across the country from I think all sectors of our society. There's a theme there that I think we need to continue to work on. And that is, that farmers and ranchers want to be good stewards. By and large, they are. And a good public, private partnership is very, very much supported by people across this country. But I don't want to leave you with the feeling that our job is done, or that we're really happy with everything. As we look at our numbers and look at where we are, we still have some real hot spots in soil erosion in the country. We have some areas, such as areas in the Paloose, in west Texas, central plains of Colorado, Loess Hills of my home State of Iowa, where we got soil erosion in some areas. It still exceeds four times the sustainable rate. We've got to renew our efforts to work with land owners and to try to get good science and technology to work on that. Even with the remarkable progress that we've made over the past 10 years, 44 million acres of highly erodible land are still eroding at more than two times the sustainable rate, over the long haul. Over 60 million acres of non-highly erodible land are eroding at levels that are above what we would consider sustainable. We really need a proactive effort, to continue to work with. We think that the voluntary approach does work. We've made great strides. The trends were in the right direction. The status is still not where we want it. And so, we want to make you aware of that. As far as water quality goes, agriculture has made great strides there. But as we look at non-point source pollution issues, agriculture is recognized as a major source. We think that with continued efforts, we can continue to make progress. Ground water overdraft is still serious in much of our country. In fact, 21 states were reporting salt water intrusions into fresh water aquifers. As we pump water, water seeps in. These are things that are red flags that tell us we're not quite there yet. Over 60 percent of all of our range lands still have problems; in some cases, serious problems, such as noxious and exotic weeds. We know how to do better. But it's going to take a major effort to do that. What is our response to all of this? We've been told by many that we're too aggressive, that our goals are unrealistic. But my answer to that is, I don't agree. I think, if anything, we're too humble, and perhaps, even too wimpy in some cases. We ought to be willing to move out in a very aggressive way in partnership with land owners. Land owners want to do better and I think we can do that. But even if we meet our most aggressive goals by the year 2002, 90 million acres of our crop land will still be eroding at unsustainable rates. We're saying that we can lay out, and this is a wild idea, but we think that we can lay out two million miles of vegetated buffers by the year 2000. Even if we could achieve that, that would still be only half of what the need is out there. We view, and in fact, many producers view these buffers as a buffer between a regulatory approach and a voluntary approach to water quality in the future. Even if we work as hard as we can with the resources we have, 55 percent of our private range land will still be in need of conservation efforts. And we'll have many watersheds that will still be untreated. Can we afford to do better? I believe we can. If we double what we now have in conservation on private lands we will get to the level that we were at in 1937. Let me say that again. If we double our present effort, our resources, our financial resources, from the Department of Agriculture in conservation on private lands, in real dollars we will be at the level that we were in 1937. We're less than half of that level right now. Our conservation budget is only 17 hundredths of one percent of the federal budget in 1996. If you look at public lands, versus private, and please, I do not want to take money from private lands. But we're running at about $10 per acre, per year investment on public land. And private lands are running at about $2 per acre, per year, to get conservation benefits. Now, I recognize that public lands are a national treasure and something that we want to care for. But private lands are also in real need of conservation. We're here to ask you for your support on that. What would another billion dollars in conservation amount to? We've calculated that it's 13 hundredths of one percent of farm real estate value. It's 22 hundredths of one percent of our food spending; 62 hundredths of one percent of our entertainment spending in this country annually, and 55 one hundredths of one percent of our cash receipts from farming. We are a rich nation. We're a nation that is probably as rich as any nation has ever been on the face of this earth. I think, if there's one disappointment that I have, after the wonderful years and the honor of being part of this process, it's that we still have not, it seems, gotten through to the American public, the importance of conservation on private lands and the need for support on that. I'd like to close with a quote from the Geography of Hope. It's the very end of our publication. It states as follows. ``As we move into the next millennium, our nation must strive for a state of harmony. We can no longer be satisfied with slowing erosion, water pollution and other forms of land degradation. ``Harmony will demand that we set our sights higher, to improve the land upon which our destiny rests, by restoring those places that are damaged, by enhancing those places, whose condition is merely adequate, and by protecting those areas that remain pristine. ``Achieving the ideal may well prove impossible, but helping farmers, ranchers and others try, is the fundamental mission of our agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Only then will private land become an integral part of our nation's geography of hope.'' Again, I want to say thank you for the support you've given us. We'd like to take your questions at this time. Mr. Skeen. Well, let me say at the outset, you touched very close to my heart and mind, as a soil conservation engineer, which was my field. I have a real desire to see us do something that we hadn't done in a long time, since the Dust Bowl days. We had a conservation program that worked, because they put the conservationists and the technological people out in the field to do the job. Slowly we eroded it away. We pulled the technicians out. We stuck them in an office and put them with a telephone in one ear, and their work and contacts were limited. We decided to leave private lands out, because the Federal government had such a big stake in the public lands. You can't do conservation work on one, if you don't do it on both to be effective. You've brought that philosophy back, and I want to commend you for it. All of you in the Department have gotten down to the real bare--I don't want to use the terminology bare earth--but back to the real problem of dealing with the earth and the fields of production, be they cropped or grazing and so forth. We're going in the right direction. Of course, we're running into the problem now, where are we going to get the money? And I just want to say that the philosophy is fine. Now it's up to us to come up with the funding. We're going to try to do that. So, we appreciate very much the work that you've done, the philosophy that you've propounded, because it's brought us back, once again, down to earth. And let's get the job done. Well, let me start with the Watershed Program, Paul. The budget request for the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations is $100 million. The proposal is to shift $60 million for technical assistance to the Conservation Operations Program, and $40 million for financial assistance to ongoing projects in the account. How many ongoing watershed projects are there? watershed projects Mr. Johnson. I'm told that it's nearly 600 projects out there right now. I think we have a backlog on those that we haven't started, in fact, over $800 million worth of projects. Mr. Skeen. But you've got 600 operational projects going on at the present time? Mr. Johnson. That's right. Mr. Skeen. What's the financial assistance needed to complete all the ongoing projects you have underway? Mr. Johnson. That is the $800 million and some. Mr. Skeen. $800 million? Mr. Johnson. The backlog. Yes. Mr. Skeen. $800 million? Mr. Johnson. Yes. Mr. Skeen. How many projects are on the waiting list to receive financial assistance? Mr. Johnson. Once again, you got my partner here saying, oh, Lord. Mr. Skeen. He isn't going to help you right now. He told us to take care of this. Mr. Johnson. Well, the total operational projects right now are 1,600. Mr. Skeen. Sixteen hundred. Mr. Johnson. So, we're probably in the neighborhood of close to 600 probably currently being installed. Mr. Skeen. So, you've got 600 of these that have not come to completion? Mr. Johnson. Yes, and even those that are being funded, I'm not sure all the money is in the bank to complete all of those. We work at it as we get money. Mr. Skeen. Well, these are just things we basically have to know, if we're going to justify what kind of outlay we can get for you. How many projects on the waiting list receive financial assistance? Mr. Johnson. I think that's in the neighborhood of close to 600. Mr. Skeen. We can do the math. Mr. Johnson. Well, we have 531 in planning. Mr. Skeen. 531? Mr. Johnson. Yes. Mr. Skeen. What amount of money do we need to complete those that are on the waiting list? What do we need to complete it? Mr. Johnson. We'll have to get that to you in writing. Mr. Skeen. That'll be fine. Mr. Johnson. We'll give you exact details. [The information follows:] $881 million is needed to complete the P.L. 566 projects waiting to receive assistance. Of this $881 million, in today's dollars, approximately 30% is for technical assistance and 70% is for financial assistance. Mr. Skeen. Right now, you're spending about 60 percent of the program on salaries? Mr. Johnson. Yes. And that includes our planning for our watersheds and, then, the technical assistance. Mr. Skeen. This is also recruitment of new technicians, as well or technical assistant people? Mr. Johnson. Well, it certainly is supporting the technical assistants that we use for our Watersheds Program, yes. Mr. Skeen. It's a little more costly than having them all in the headquarters some place, because you've got them scattered all over. Mr. Johnson. They're not in headquarters, I can tell you that. Mr. Skeen. We needed to move them out of there. The erosion is taking place outside. Mr. Johnson. I think we have them in just about every State in the country. Mr. Skeen. Can you tell us what the percentage breakout between technical and financial assistance was for the past five years? If you don't have that at your fingertips, you can just supply it also for the record. Mr. Johnson. We'll supply that for the record. [The information follows:] WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PL 534: Technical assistance................................. $16,438 $17,785 $10,000 $9,000 $9,000 Financial assistance................................. 23,754 22,921 0 0 0 Loan services........................................ 80 80 0 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------ Total.............................................. 40,272 40,786 10,000 15,000 15,000 ====================================================== PL 566: Technical assistance................................. 63,663 72,278 60,000 51,000 52,036 Financial assistance................................. 101,343 100,098 0 34,000 34,000 Loan services........................................ 172 172 0 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------ Total.............................................. 165,178 172,548 60,000 85,000 86,036 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Skeen. We've been waiting for the Administration to submit its emergency supplemental requests. I thought it was supposed to be here a couple of weeks ago. Can you tell us when we'll see it? Or is it in preparation? ewp supplemental request Mr. Lyons. Mr. Chairman, I think Steve has the latest information, in terms of the supplemental request, which I believe the President signed today. Mr. Skeen. Today? Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir. Well, we were waiting for some waters to recede, I think. So, we forgot what we needed. Mr. Skeen. All right. Mr. Dewhurst. We were told the President signed the request this morning. Mr. Skeen. This morning? Mr. Dewhurst. It should be here or almost here. Mr. Skeen. What are the latest estimates for the need of emergency watershed work? Mr. Dewhurst. The President, we believe, his request will ask for $84.1 million for emergency watersheds. Mr. Skeen. Last week, the Secretary announced the preliminary State allocations for the fiscal year 1997 EQIP Program. Are we jumping the gun a little, since the final rules and regulations haven't been published yet? And in fact, you don't expect to publish them until sometime I believe in April, if everything goes the right way, and we know how seldom that occurs. Could you give us some idea? eqip state allocations Mr. Johnson. Yes. I don't think we'll be jumping the gun, because the final rules that deal with, certainly with how we allocate money are very similar to the proposed rule. So, we don't see major changes there. Mr. Skeen. Transitional? Mr. Johnson. No. Our people wanted that information, as people come in for signing up CRP and so on, to start talking about the opportunities that we will have in EQIP. That's why we put that out. Mr. Skeen. Well, you're going over the criteria for the breakout on the funds, as I understand it, and that's part of it. Did you wipe the slate clean and start all over this year and establish new criteria for EQIP, or did you just use the criteria from the four old conservation programs? eqip criteria Mr. Johnson. We have a set of criteria that we use, that's based on needs across the country, that's based on our NRI and our strategic planning and so on. There were 26 factors, I believe, included in that. That was the basis for the allocations. Then, we looked at the combined amounts that were received in the last three years, I believe it was, for ACP, Great Plains, Colorado Salinity and Water Quality Incentives Program, and said that we would not reduce anybody by more than 5 percent, I believe, and increase them by more than 30. I think everybody just about fit within that level. So, it really is based on a fairly objective look at needs, these 26 points. Mr. Skeen. Those estimates got to the main bulk of your work. Mr. Johnson. Oh, yes. Yes. Mr. Skeen. You were in disagreement with OMB, on how much you had received from EQIP for technical assistance. When we did the bill last year, you stated that you needed $38 million, to carry out a $200 million dollar program. OMB, on the other hand, decided to only reimburse you to the tune of some $10 million, and they have since increased this number to $20 million. Where does this disagreement stand today? technical assistance for eqip Mr. Johnson. We are still negotiating with them. They asked us to put together some justification for our base program and what the needs were out there for that. And we've done that. I think that, that is being forwarded to OMB, or maybe was yesterday, or it will be today or tomorrow. We're still in negotiation with them, hoping to reachthe $38 million mark. Mr. Skeen. How much of the $200 million will you receive to carry out the program? Mr. Johnson. Well, right now, we're---- Mr. Skeen. That's what you're trying to figure out. Mr. Johnson. Yes. And right now, we're authorized at 20 million. Mr. Skeen. Will you appeal OMB's decision? Mr. Lyons. Well, we have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Johnson. It's one constant appeal. Mr. Skeen. Well, you're under appeal now? Mr. Lyons. Yes. When we discussed this the other day, I think I misspoke somewhat. I want to clarify. You know, the 10 percent that was in the budget reflects---- Mr. Skeen. We misspeak around here all the time. Mr. Lyons. Oh, yes. Well, but that's what happens behind closed doors. We had made a request consistent with the instructions we got from the Committee last year. Mr. Skeen. Yes. Mr. Lyons. And we got a small part of that. We appealed. We got a little more back. We'll just keep appealing until we get to the right point, and hopefully we'll be there. Mr. Johnson. The important issue here, I believe, is an understanding for a need for a base program across the country, to service not only EQIP, as it comes along, but emergencies and all of the daily work that we do together with conservation districts. And we're going to do everything we can to try to explain that better to policy makers here in Washington and people across the country. This fabric of technical assistance that's woven across the country is really an extremely important part of our conservation on private lands. And I have a feeling that many of us don't understand it as well as we should. And part of it is our fault, perhaps for not explaining it better. So, we are working on that. Mr. Lyons. On the other hand, as you've pointed out, Mr. Chairman, in your remarks today and previously, you know, this is fairly simple stuff. It's people out on the ground, working with land owners one-on-one. Mr. Skeen. Absolutely. Mr. Lyons. If we don't have the support for that technical assistance, we can't deliver all the great conservation programs that we now have authorized through the 1996 Farm Bill and other legislation. It's critically important. This stuff doesn't happen without knowledge and exposure to the opportunities, that we can afford land owners, to improve their conservation practices. And that's why that support is so critical. Mr. Skeen. You need $38 million, and you got $20 million. What programs may suffer, or will you try to eliminate any? Mr. Johnson. Well, those are people. We figure about 20 people for every million dollars. Mr. Skeen. Twenty people for every million dollars. Mr. Johnson. Yes. Mr. Skeen. When do you expect to release the technical assistance allocation? Mr. Johnson. They'll be released as we--we did not release them right away because our reimbursement for CCC programs depends on the work that we do. And so, we had to get the money out there first. And then as we do the work, then we can qualify for those CCC dollars. So, they'll be released as we carry out the program. conservation reserve program Mr. Skeen. On the Conservation Reserve Program, Congressman Peterson has introduced a bill to allow the Secretary to extend the expiring CRP contracts for one year. What's the Administration's position on this bill? Mr. Lyons. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have, of course, moved forward with the program. We're in a sign-up now. We think that it's critically important that we proceed with the CRP Program we've laid out. We think the program is redesigned reflecting the direction of Congress. We'll get the most environmentally sensitive acres in the program. Criteria that are to be used to determine what lands qualify include soil erosion, and water quality, and wildlife habitat values, and a whole host of other factors. We think the right thing to do is to proceed and get this program on the landscape as quickly as possible. Mr. Skeen. Well, I take it then that you've already explored your way of maximizing the environmental benefits of the new program, and that's where you're going to be putting the effort. Mr. Lyons. We are, Mr. Chairman, we are. And by that same token though, we'll look and see what success we have, if there are inadequacies in the formula, or if it doesn't achieve the goals that we seek to achieve, then we'll rework things. Mr. Skeen. You've got that kind of flexibility? Mr. Lyons. Well, yes, we do. Yes, we do. Mr. Skeen. Well, I appreciate that. Mr. Fazio. Mr. Fazio. Mr. Chairman, I'll pass. Mr. Skeen. All right. Thank you, sir. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Fazio. Chief Johnson, Mr. Lyons, thank you very much for your testimony and for the work that you do. It's very important. I don't think the American public has any idea how important it is. Those of us who have some experience, as the Chairman does in this work, know how valuable it is. I'd also like to thank you for including our skinny on the state watershed project in your magazine. I think it's something that we can be very proud of, the cooperation that we've had between the Federal Government, the state government, and the local government. It just makes sense to treat the lake and watershed and deal with the problems, rather than treating the lake water at the end, after it's left the lake, filtering it, and treating it. It just makes a whole lot more sense to preserve the resource. I think that model is a good one. It could be used elsewhere. You know, I think I told you, the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Environmental Protection Agency, because of two or three incidents a year of turbidity on Skaneateles Lake, were going to require the city to build about a $40 million water filtration plant. And the off days, the other 362 days a year, you can take a quarter and flip it into that lake and watch it 50, 60, 70 feet down. It makes no sense. This lake is pristine. So, the money that's being spent on an annual basis is essential, not only in improving the water quality, but also the value of theland, the value of the farms, and by the way, the fishing. And there's a lot to be said for good fishing. You are sampling it periodically? Mr. Johnson. On occasion, yes. I consider it part of my federal duties to take a rainbow trout or a land salmon out of there whenever I can. Mr. Walsh. And since we're partners with you, maybe---- Mr. Johnson. If you'd like to come up and do a field---- Mr. Lyons. We need to take a look at this. Mr. Johnson. Come up and do a field visit, we'd be glad to show you what a good job you're doing. Mr. Skeen. That's partnership. environmental quality incentives program Mr. Walsh. Our job is a little more difficult, as these programs become mandatory. So I just wanted to ask you a little bit about the mandatory programs. The EQIP Program, for example, can you comment on the initial feedback on that program, from the farming community? Mr. Johnson. Yes. I believe that there are a lot of people, saying where is it? It's taken a while to pull things together, partly because we had to take second place to CRP, as we worked hard to get those rules in place and out. But, I think any problems that there are in it right now, are primarily because they haven't seen it. It's not there at their local conservation district office. We really need to take a good assessment of it a year from now. I have a feeling that people are going to be pretty excited about it. It's going to provide significant dollars to solve real problems. mandatory programs Mr. Walsh. The emphasis on mandatory programs, in the last farm bill, do you anticipate a level of participation in those programs sufficient to support the spend-outs that we've appropriated for those programs? Mr. Johnson. We'll have to see. But I believe so. I think that there is a terrific demand out there, particularly as we put pressure on water quality issues, for example. There's a lot of interest in wildlife habitat. And there was a huge interest, of course, in farmland protection, far more. In fact, almost every program we run, there are many times more people wanting the services than we have dollars to provide. The WRP Program, the offers are way, way, way over any amount of money we have. So, I think that the demand is certainly there for it. I know, on CRP the sign-up that's going on right now apparently is very, very heavy, from what we're hearing. program priorities Mr. Walsh. Well, Ducks Unlimited sure likes the program. And again, we can save ourselves a lot of money in the long run, if we protect the soils that we have now. And I know that's your primary goal. If you could, in terms of your department's priorities, what would you list as your top two or three priorities? You know, we're going to have to make some hard decisions along the way. And if you could just, rather than tell us what you don't like, tell us what you like and what you need to do. That might be helpful. Mr. Johnson. Well, we need at least $1 billion more for people. Mr. Walsh. That's your first priority. Mr. Skeen. That's a pretty good start. Mr. Johnson. My dream is to be able to say that without anyone laughing. Mr. Walsh. I hear you. Mr. Johnson. Certainly, to maintain a strong technical expertise across the country. I assume that we will continue to have good financial programs available, those that were enacted in the last farm bill. We need those tools. And I view the farm programs as tools. They're pieces that you use to achieve goals that you set out for yourself. But the partnership that's out there right now between our employees, conservation districts and their employees, and by the way, there are getting to be more and more of them. I think that the partnership is leveraging so that people at the local level are saying, we want to contribute to our home place as well, is really to me, the heart and soul of conservation on private lands in this country. And I know that goes against the grain of people who think government should be smaller. And we all complain about those kinds of things. But it's a resource that is terribly underestimated. And as I've attended some meetings in the last few years elsewhere in the world, to see how they're trying to deal with these issues, I keep coming back and saying, I'm so thankful for those people that are out there. When I started farming 25 years ago, the first thing I did was to call the Soil Conservation Service. They came out. And although I had background in engineering and background in biology, they knew how to lay out those contour strips, and how to lay in those water diversions that today, make my farm much healthier than it was. So, I would put that certainly number one. I think I'll get in trouble if I go beyond that. There are a lot of interests. Certainly, watersheds are very, very important, as we look to the future. And we've been working with a broad array of people, to try to get a consensus on a watershed approach that deals with land treatment, as well as structures when necessary. We've got watershed coalitions farming all across the country. And if we can't be able to join with them and provide the resources; in many of the farm bill programs, are tools that can be used in those watersheds, if we could just organize around them and facilitate that locally driven process. I think that's very, very important. The others, of course, are now considered CCC funded programs. And I think they're all very, very good tools. I think all of these programs, or the actual programs, as we move through them, we've got to continue to ask ourselves, is this the best way to do it. And we're certainly willing to do that. We should continue to ask the producers, our customers and other people in our society, if this is the best way. But we believe it is right, now. And we want to give it a chance, to see how it works. Mr. Lyons. Mr. Walsh, I wouldn't disagree with Paul, in terms of priorities. But I might emphasize one thing, because we had a little discussion about this earlier. Often times, we ignore the valuable investment in people to go out and do this work. We've been blessed with a farm bill that is really a conservation bill, the 1996 Farm Bill. And when I worked on the House Agriculture Committee, when you were first joining the Congress, of course, the debate over things like wildlife, in the 1990 Farm Bill, weren't positive debates at all. It was a debate over private property rights and endangered species. What a difference six years makes, in terms of focus. We have some very valuable tools to use across the landscape. We have land retirement tools, like the CRP, and the WRP, and the easement programs that are available to us. So, we can take the most environmentally sensitive land and take it out of production for a period of time, either long term easements, under WRP, or the 10-year set asides we have under CRP. We have extremely valuable and useful cost share assistance that we can provide the land owners, to get things done, to get them over the hurdle of making an investment in conservation, maybe because they don't have the resources or they don't see the benefit immediately, the long term benefit, that we've come to understand because of the work that we've done. Of course, this is our profession. But none of those tools are useful unless you have people who know how to apply them. The analogy I use is, we've got a great tool kit, but we need to make sure we have enough carpenters out there who know how to use those tools on the landscape. And so, it's critically important that we make that investment in that portion of the conservation operations budget that gets people out there to work with the land owners, to get the job done. The only other area I would add as essential as well is the investments we're trying to make in improving our technology. As all of you know, the more we learn how to use the technology that's available, I think the easier it is to get out there and have more time on the ground and less time worrying about paperwork. The more we move our databases to systems that are more easily obtained and used, like geographic information systems, the better able we are to look at landscapes and entire watersheds, and to share that information with communities and other agencies, so we can talk a common language and share information. I think that's critical investment as well. Mr. Walsh. Well, thank you both. You know, I think what we learned--at least I did in that 1990 Farm Bill process, which was my first real inception to this process up here, is that conservationists and the agriculturalists really did have to get together to make that work. And it was the first time. And it wasn't always neat. But there was a natural alliance there. And it's kind of like the Members of this subcommittee, working with the inner city legislators, who understand the need to appropriate funds for nutrition, and at the same time, supporting the farmers that grow the food. And we have to look for those sort of synergies and those alliances all the way through the process. And more and more, we have to be willing to listen to both sides, when we're enacting legislation that affects rural America, private lands, public lands, the agricultural lands particularly. Thank you. Mr. Skeen. Mr. Fazio. conservation reserve program Mr. Fazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good to see you, gentlemen. I appreciated a chance to meet with you, Paul, the other day. And Jim, I want to thank you for your ongoing interest in the Quincy Library Group and a lot of other issues in Northern California. I wanted to ask a bit about the CRP Program. I noticed in the Congress Daily today, Secretary Glickman's announcing that already, even though we have another two weeks or so to run, we've got 162,000 farmers signing for 13.5 million acres of land in the Conservation Reserve Program. And yet, the appearance is that, not only with Mr. Walsh's area, the northeast, there are not very many sign-ups, and I guess that's a disappointment to people in that part of the country. They were looking for some additional watershed benefits. But the people in my section of the country are not signing up as well. There is some estimate that there may be no more than a million acres in California signed up. I'm wondering what is causing there to be such a differentiation from one part of the country to the other, in terms of an interest in signing up for these programs? Perhaps, it's something that's obvious. And maybe it's something that isn't. And I'm interested in your thoughts first of all, particularly in light of the fact that we're talking about cutting back on funding for the apparently, worthy purpose of buying the mine near Yellowstone. In the face of what is obviously something the Department seeks just as vigorously as ever, and that is a higher than ever participation rate, which apparently, you're receiving. Yet, overwhelmingly, on a regional basis. Mr. Johnson. There are a couple of issues here. One, the CRP is a program to set aside, or to purchase environmental benefits off of crop land primarily. Most crop land certainly, in California, is under real demand. And it seems to be drifting towards development, in many cases. And it's pretty hard to compete on a CRP contract, in cases like that. And in New England it's, again, I think the abundance of crop land or non-abundance of crop land that's important. We've tried to stretch it this year somewhat, by pushing the Vegetated Buffer Initiative; the opportunity is not to enroll huge acreage of land, but to enroll very strategic pieces of land, along rivers and streams, and small pieces of wildlife habitat, and things like that. And we're certainly hoping that will take off in the Northeast and on the West Coast. There's a continuous sign-up, that will continue beyond this one major sign-up. But as the CRP is constructed right now, it really is meant for crop land. I would like to see the continued discussion over the next few years, about looking at a program like CRP, for all private land, sort of the Private Land Initiative, where you could be purchasing these benefits from land that's not necessarily land that was intensively cropped. And then, to me, the next stage of that would be one where you would be paying, perhaps allowing some economic use of the land, but getting some environmental benefits along with it. I think that this is an evolutionary process that continues to move towards a time when we will be truly paying farmers and private land owners for good stewardship. It's a great program and it's, I think, much better this time than it was the first time. But as our ideas grow on it and as we get a lot of research behind us on it, and a good national dialogue on it, I think it will evolve more and more, to be used throughout the country and not just crop land. watersheds Mr. Lyons. I would just comment, Congressman, that the idea that Paul broached, about basically recognizing the values of watersheds upstream, and making investments in those, is one that's taking hold in lots of parts of the country, but especially in California. NRCS and the Forest Service were recently invited to join theCal-Fed effort. And we are joining as a USDA partner, in part, to reflect the fact that we're going to do work across the landscape, the uplands, in the Sierras, the national forests that we administer, as well as the downstream work. But more and more, there seems to be recognition. I've had some discussions with the rural counties out there, of the value of their landscape, from the standpoint of producing water to benefit all downstream users. And there has to be a way to capture that and to help those rural communities realize the value from their land, that others downstream captures. CRP affords us some of that benefit, but there are other mechanisms that we probably should discuss and identify. And we've seen the same in New York; work we did in the Catskills benefitting New York City and its watershed. So, that concept seems to be taking hold. And in fact, in many instances, maybe the highest and best use of some of that rural landscape is just that. Mr. Fazio. But all these foothill areas, the areas that are really the gathering place of the streams that feed into the valley rivers, are not covered because they aren't in crops. They are often used as grazing land. And sometimes regrettably, they end up being impacted negatively by that intensive use that sometimes takes place. Mr. Lyons. Well, some of those lands will qualify under the continuous sign-up. Mr. Fazio. Will they? Mr. Lyons. Yes. Mr. Fazio. What kind of lands would fall into this category? Mr. Johnson. It would be land that would have been considered pasture land, along rivers and streams. So, you couldn't take it right on up into the hillsides, but you could do the riparian areas. Mr. Fazio. Which would be a very significant---- Mr. Johnson. It would help a great deal. Mr. Fazio--positive influence on our efforts to preserve habitat, but do it in a way that isn't totally economically impossible for the land owner. Mr. Johnson. It's probably going to be possible to use some EQIP dollars to help with those issues too, I think. rental rates Mr. Fazio. Is this a question really, of the rental rates? I mean, when you look at values of land in California and northeastern parts of the country, and maybe some others that are not heavily signing up, isn't it really a question of an inability to go to the market rates that you'd have to go to? The rental rates are pretty inflexible, aren't they, when you look at the diversity of the country? How do you determine them? Mr. Johnson. The rental rates are based on soil rental rates. We look at soil types and then look at what the going rate is for that for agricultural purposes. And so, it does vary from county to county and across the country, and the demand for that land for agricultural purposes. Now, we can't compete very well with some of the development that's going on across the country. Mr. Fazio. But you think you can with agricultural crops. I mean, you know, that shouldn't be an impediment. Mr. Johnson. It shouldn't be, but we are hearing, that in some cases, those rates are lower than are really competitive. We are able to pay more, I think, up to 120 percent for vegetated buffered areas. So, that does add a little bit onto it. We're working with the Secretary on this. I think that we want to take a look at it and make sure that the program does work all across the country and where it isn't, then we would certainly take a look at trying to make it work. Mr. Fazio. You will be reviewing therefore, the sign-ups and the failure to sign up, and hope that you can bring the Congress some proposals to refashion it? Or do you have the administrative authority to---- Mr. Johnson. It depends on what we're asking for there. If it's moving it away from crop land, then it's probably going to take legislative authority. But with all of these programs, as we get them out there and they start--and they're used, we need to continue to assess them and reassess them. I don't think we should assume that we lay out one set of rules and then seven years later, or five years later, we come back and say, now maybe we can check it out and see how it's working. We should be doing that on a continuous process. And hopefully, our local-led conservation process will make us take a look at these things. And if something's not working, we should make it work. These are programs that belong to the American people. And if they're not working, we're not servicing people very well. Mr. Fazio. And these rental rates are determined at the county level. Who is responsible for doing the evaluations of what would be a proper rate? Mr. Johnson. Our agency is responsible for providing the technical input in it. And the Farm Services Agency--and I believe, we concur. Is that right? Mr. Lyons. Yes. Mr. Johnson. Okay. Mr. Fazio. It's a dual responsibility, with the Farm Service Agency? Mr. Johnson. Yes. We can each blame each other. Mr. Fazio. That's what I was afraid of. Could I have somebody meet with me later, to talk about how these rates are determined, and see if I can bring up some evidence, from my own side of the fence, as to whether or not they are realistic in that context? Mr. Johnson. Yes. We'll give you Tom Hebert and Larry Clark. How's that? Mr. Fazio. How long can I keep them? Mr. Lyons. How long are you going to keep them? state enhancement program Mr. Fazio. Well, we may just capture them out there, until they raise the rates. That's what we'll probably do. Can I ask about the State Enhancement Program? A lot of people are really anxious to see your program incorporated with habitat-wide and watershed-wide approaches, and really, as you mentioned, Cal-Fed comes to mind. You've got a couple of state programs, in Minnesota, Illinois, Maryland. Do you see this as a wave of the future for your program? And if you could, this gives me some excitement, given the additional flexibility to be engaged in some of these regional efforts. How do you see your program perhaps, changing over time, to be more involved in these state-driven initiatives? Mr. Lyons. I would suggest I'm more familiar with the Maryland program, because I live out there, but that more and more states are taking advantage of the opportunity to piggy- back, if you will, on the federal programs and I think there are opportunities for us to sit down with state conservation agencies and see how we can better dovetail the goals and objectives. One example is the very successful Farmland Protection Program, that California has. And while California may not have been as strong a beneficiary of CRP today, with farmland protection, certainly, it's been one of our primary partners, in terms of the federal-state partnership. So, I think hopefully, it is a wave of the future, because the degree to which we work together, as opposed to create duplicative programs or programs that create conflicting rules for participation, is the greater, which we're going to lose the opportunity to capture the benefits as efficiently as possible. Mr. Johnson. We've come a long way. In 1985, when the CRP was implemented, I was Chair of Agriculture and Natural Resources Appropriations, in the State of Iowa, in our State House. And we had a budget of about $20 million a year, to run all of our programs for the state. CRP came in and within three years, they were spending $160 million a year. And we had no say on where that money went or how it was used. This time around, we have implemented the state technical committees. And so, all of our programs, all of our financial and technical assistance programs are guided by advice from the state technical committees. That brings your state programs and your state agencies together with us. So, as we make decisions on how to utilize them within a state, we can bring our pieces to the table, and states bring theirs, and local government brings theirs, and the private sector brings theirs. There's some exciting stuff going on now because of it. We're determined to continue that process. We think it's a healthy one and it gets a lot more conservation on the land. resource conservation and development Mr. Fazio. Yes. I just want to encourage that. I think, who's piggy-backing on who is a debatable issue at times. Some states are more engaged and some less. But to have these programs not coordinated, to have them occasionally working across purposes, is a luxury we can't afford. And I really think that, to a large extent, we need to have some formalization of a way in which we integrate state and federal programs, because the demand, at least from my observation point, is so great that I just hate to have us not working on the same set of criteria. I just wanted to ask a final related question. Resource Conservation districts, in my part of the country are, I think, an increasingly important entity, that can help us solve a lot of our environmental problems, from the bottom up. If we get a lot of people of good will together, we can do a lot. But we are so inadequately funded, in terms of staffing, to really solve the problems that confront us in this highly competitive environment, where so many uses of the land are in conflict. I'm particularly pleased to see the statistic that you cite, of $13 being leveraged from other sources, for every dollar that the National Resources Conservation Service spends in technical and financial assistance. We are anxious to see that kind of leveraging. And I think we could do a lot more of it if we had the resources. Somebody was showing me the map of the United States, by county. And as you see, west of the Rockies, we don't have a lot of counties, relative to other parts of the country. And yet, I sense the resources for conservation districts are being distributed largely based on this map. Maybe that was a thing of the past. I don't know. But we have a certain degree of paranoia, which I'm beginning to think is perhaps, justifiable. And in the historic allocation of your resources to certain parts of the country--I'm hoping to get the Chairman's support for this concept, because I think it's generally in the West, where we perhaps, haven't had the investment in the kind of people who can really help us solve a lot of our problems. Mr. Walsh. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. Fazio. Yes. Mr. Walsh. Are you suggesting that California might not be getting it's fair share, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Fazio. Well, I was trying to be somewhat more subtle than that. But I obviously failed. But this is, frankly, an ongoing concern. And I just wondered if you could put it into context. I know you're cutting back in other parts of the country. It's not easy to send people the bad news that they're not only losing their staff, but it's going to some other part of the country. It's a lot easier just to tell them it's part of downsizing the Federal Government and cutting back at the USDA. But we have a crying need to invest more in these strategies. And if we don't, we're going to end up with more wild and scenic, you know, more top down environmental law from the federal level, which many of my constituents find hard to accept. Mr. Johnson. Well, first of all, the issue of the number of conservation districts, although there's certainly expenses per district. That's not getting conservation on the land, when you are spending it in renting an office somewhere. There are many states that wish they were like California; states with many, many counties, and able to consolidate some of these issues. And you know, the fierce independence of counties in our political system in this country. So, we have states like---- Mr. Fazio. Actually, leaving the Federal Government, at the moment. They're declaring independence. That's another problem I have. natural resources districts Mr. Johnson. Yes. Well, I won't get into that one. But the State of Nebraska, for example, back in the 1970s, pulled away and put together natural resources districts, based on watersheds, and moved from, I don't remember how many there were, but considerably less today. And other states look with envy at that. We try to allocate our resources based on the needs. And this gets back to the chart we mentioned with EQIP, of 26 different factors in the case of EQIP. And our whole planning efforts right now, are to, from the ground resources based on need across the country. And as you know, it's not easy to take from one area that traditionally has a certain amount and get it to the other. But we are very carefully and gently trying to get resources to where the needs are. And we'll certainly continue to work with you on that, as we are with everybodyacross the country. eqip allocations for california Mr. Lyons. And just so you know, for the record, Mr. Fazio, that California is going to receive a full 30 percent increase in the EQIP allocation that it gets, compared to the allocation they would have gotten under the programs that were combined, EQIP. So, we haven't lost site of California's importance. And I want to assure you, you have a very vocal President of the RCDs there; Glenda, who reminds us often that we should not neglect the West Coast. Mr. Fazio. Well, I'm kind of sorry I asked it and that you answered it that way, because now I have to fight hard to keep it. Mr. Johnson. We'll ask Mr. Latham what he thinks about it. Mr. Fazio. But anyway, I appreciate the awareness that has been brought about. Thank you. Mr. Skeen. Mr. Latham. Mr. Latham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I think we should look into the allocations. I'm not sure Iowa is getting their 30 percent increase. I just want to acknowledge Mr. Johnson. I think he is a great individual. He is from Iowa. I'm very proud of that. He has done a super job, I think. And the thing that I most admire is that he's been very much hands-on, and been willing to listen to real cases in Iowa. And I know we visited farms together. And I appreciate you very much. I just have one question. On CRP, there was a report or proposal, I guess, to take two million acres out of CRP, and use those dollars to buy a gold mine. I don't know where this, I would characterize it as nutty idea, came from. But do you have any comment on that? Mr. Johnson. Jim Lyons does. yellowstone new world mine Mr. Lyons. Thank you, Paul. Yes. Well, I can explain the concept. Congressmen, the part of an agreement that was struck between Crown Butte and the Administration was to, in essence, purchase what would have been the New World Mine, which was to develop in close proximity to the Yellowstone National Park. We were very much concerned about some of the environmental affects that would have resulted from the development. Mr. Lyons. I'm not quite saved by the bell am I? Mr. Latham. We have 15 minutes. Mr. Lyons. I know that. But in order to acquire that property, we had to come up with resources. The resources actually will come from deferred royalties, from oil and gas leases. It will actually pay the amount of money that's going to go into the acquisition of the mine. However, because of budget rules, we had to come up with an offset. And the offset that was proposed was the funds that would have provided for an additional two million acres of CRP enrollment this year. What will happen simply is, we'll defer that enrollment to later in the program. So, we hope it will have a minimal affect. That doesn't mean we're not strongly committed to CRP. I don't want you to get the wrong message, because we are and we've talked a great deal about its utility as a conservation tool. But we're also equally concerned about the future of Yellowstone National Park; one of the crown jewels in the park system. And we're doing our fair share. increase for CRP in california and iowa Mr. Latham. Would it be possible to take this money, instead of out of CRP maybe, out of the 30 percent increase in California? Mr. Lyons. Actually, there's not enough money there. Mr. Latham. Oh, okay. Mr. Lyons. By the way, Iowa is getting an increase, too. I want you to know. Mr. Fazio. You didn't give them the percentage though? Mr. Lyons. You don't want to know. Mr. Johnson. Percentages are based on the base. And 30 percent in California is probably about two percent in Iowa. Mr. Latham. Now, there's a national leader. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Skeen. Mr. Kingston. Mr. Kingston. Mr. Chairman, I pass. Mr. Skeen. Mr. Fazio, another shot? Mr. Fazio. I pass, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Skeen. Well, we have to go vote. So, I think this is probably a pretty good place to bring this to an end. There's just one thing that has always bothered me. What's the difference between an environmentalist and a conservationist? You know, you can refuse to answer. Mr. Johnson. I've seen answers on billboards and everything. But I don't want to repeat them to you. So, I think we're both. Mr. Skeen. I think so too, but I think we're really getting down to the working edge on this thing. We have a lot of people who are espousing this great sentiment about environmentalism and conservation and I think your program approaches really defining it. Mr. Kingston? urban forests Mr. Kingston. The only thing I wanted to say, Mr. Lyons, is one of the things I know can typically happen, particularly in urban forest areas, is a city or a county decides maybe not to develop it, but turn it into an urban forest natural area. And then they put a gate on it. And they say, we're going to make it an outdoor classroom for kids. Kids are already out there riding their bikes. They're already building tree houses. They are already throwing rocks at tree trunks and they're already having a big time in the forest, learning how to appreciate a forest. And one of the things I've spoken to my local folks about, who have worked with you on some occasions, that mentally, we must remember that there's nothing more boring in the world, to a kid, than an outdoor classroom controlled by a teacher. They knew what to do with the tree. You know, and I know you're not pushing that philosophy. I just want to make sure that everybody who thinks these outdoor classrooms are next to heaven, it's just an adult phenomenon. Kids know what to do in woodlands. And they don't need any adults saying, now kids, let me ruin it for you. You know, they were having fun in the forest. You want the party to be fun, you get out of the room. We know what to do. And so, I just want to make sure that, that side is represented when people starttalking about urban forest and outdoor classrooms, that these kids are given their freedom. They get far more out of it because that's where they really bond with the forest. They fall in love with it and they'll grow up to fight for it. But if it becomes an antiseptic biology trip the only thing is, you're taking them outdoors. So, that's my two cents. I want to reclaim my time. Mr. Skeen. The NEA just sent me a wire. You're in deep trouble. I want to thank you all very much. We'll go ahead and bring this to a close, and thank you so much for your responses. Thank you for all the great technological help and the real brainpower it takes to make these programs work, because I think you see it through a real realistic viewpoint. We appreciate it, and so, with that, we'll adjourn. [Additional questions and responses follow:] Wetlands Reserve Program Mr. Skeen. One of the changes your agency made to the Wetlands Reserve Program, WRP, has been to authorize easement payments shortly following an easement recording rather than waiting for restoration practices to be fully installed. Under this new arrangement, do you require a commitment from the landowner to repay this easement payment if restoration practices aren't installed by a specific date? Response. In the case of permanent easements the restoration cost is 100 percent Federal. Payment for installation of the restoration practices is not made until the work has been completed and certified as meeting agency standards and specifications. Restoration associated with 30-year easements involves a 25 percent cost-share. The landowner's share for the cost of restoration is generally obtained at the time the easement closing occurs. The amount of the easement land payment is generally reduced by the amount of cost-share that is required of the landowner. While the landowner is usually involved in the restoration effort, the easement document does provide the agency with the full authority to implement the restoration should a problem develop or where the agency and landowner agree that an alternative approach should be taken (e.g. Ducks Unlimited agrees to implement the restoration effort and is subsequently reimbursed by the agency). Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 572 of last year's hearing record showing, by fiscal year, how many bids were received, how many were accepted, and how many easements have been filed to reflect actuals. [The information follows:] WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of No. of Appropriation Acres of Number of Acres Number of Acres landowners Year States (in millions) applications applications enrolled landowners recorded w/easements enrolled recorded -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1992........................................ 8 \1\ $46 249,059 1,314 43,428 228 43,428 22 1994........................................ 20 \2\ 66.7 587,000 5,775 75,000 457 73,110 43 1995........................................ (7) \3\ 93.2 485,933 3,335 115,000 633 93,200 59 1996........................................ (7) \4\ 77 \5\ NA NA \4\ 92,405 540 49,300 27 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total................................. ........... \6\ 282.9 1,321,992 10,424 325,833 1,858 259,038 153 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ $5 million of the 1992 appropriation was utilized in the 1994 sign-up. \2\ $8 million of the 1994 appropriation was transferred to another account, and thus not available for WRP: $5 million of 1992 funds were available thus the total amount available in 1994 was $64 million. \3\ $890,000 was transferred from the 1995 appropriation to cover Water Bank contract extensions. \4\ By the end of 1997, a partnership with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation will enroll an additional 8,830 acres (40 easements). \5\ Due to the abundance of existing unfunded WRP applications, no regular sign-up was held and the 1996 appropriation was used to fund the 1995 sign-up backlog. \6\ Due to the changes outlined in footnotes 2 and 3 above, the actual amount available for WRP is $274 million. \7\ Nationwide. Mr. Skeen. Provide two separate tables that include this same information for both the Emergency Wetlands Reserve Program and the new WRP program funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation. Include in the table for the new CCC funded program a breakout of the number of acres enrolled in permanent easements, the number enrolled in 30-year easements, and the number enrolled as restoration cost-shared agreements. [The information follows:] [Page 521--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Skeen. Also provide a table that shows this information for the partnership you have with the Fish and Wildlife Foundation. [The information follows:] PARTNERSHIP WITH FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Acres of Number of Acres Number of Acres land owners Year Appropriation applications applications enrolled land owners recorded w/easements enrolled recorded -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1996..................................................... $5 million 37,561 103 4,569 20 2,454.5 9 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: By August 30, 1997, we anticipate that the 11 landowners and 2,115 acres currently enrolled under the Partnership Fund will be recorded, and an additional 15-20 landowners and up to 4,260 acres will be enrolled and recorded. how cost-share agreements work Mr. Skeen. Briefly describe how the cost-share agreements work. Response. In those instances where a landowner may be interested in having a restoration project take place on his/her lands but is not interested in entering into any formal easement sale transaction, the restoration cost-share agreement would be available. The agency would provide up to 75 percent of the cost of the restoration. The landowner makes the restoration site available without payment for the use of the land and agrees to allow the restoration site to remain in a restored state for a period of at least 10 years. In some instances if we are dealing with a particularly expensive restoration or the restoration structure being placed in the wetland has a life expectancy of longer than 10 years the duration of the agreement may be, subject to mutual agreement of the parties, for a longer duration. unobligated balance in wrp appropriated account Mr. Skeen. What is the Current unobligated balance in the old WRP program? Response. As of September 30, 1996, the unobligated balance under the old WRP was approximately $31 million. In fiscal year 1997, we plan to use approximately $12.3 million of this unobligated balance for NRCS technical assistance in the WRP program. mitigation banking Mr. Skeen. At last year's hearing, you told the Committee that NRCS, the Corps, EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA were strategizing to develop implementation plans to utilize mitigation banking. What is the status of this initiative? Response. NRCS, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service--NOAA--developed the ``Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks,'' which was published in the Federal Register on November 28, 1995 and became effective December 28, 1995. The agencies worked together to produce this document in order to clarify the manner in which mitigation banks may be used to satisfy requirements of the Clean Water Act, Section 404 and the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act. Last year, the aforementioned agencies sponsored workshops across the country to provide further instruction to agency field staff and to promote interagency support for the utilization of this guidance. Theagencies continue to work together and plan to distribute additional information to address some of the concerns that may be more technical or specific than that of the original guidance. NRCS is working to insure that all USDA program participants are aware and understand that utilization of mitigation banks, in some circumstances, may be an appropriate option to fulfill their mitigation requirements. mitigation banking pilots Mr. Skeen. The 1996 farm bill gave the Secretary the authority to utilize appropriate measures to compensate for wetland losses and to use CRP funds for mitigation banking pilots. At this time last year, NRCS was developing the rules to implement this provision. What is the status of this issue? Response. The Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation Interim Final Rule which was published on September 6, 1996, included a broad statement explaining that the Secretary had been given the authority to establish a mitigation banking pilot program. However no specific appropriations were identified for this program. The rule also stated that USDA had not made any decisions regarding the particulars of the program; thus, comments were solicited from the public regarding this subject. These comments have been reviewed and the agency is in the process determining the next appropriate steps for implementation. status of wetland delineations moratorium Mr. Skeen. In the spring of 1995, Secretary Glickman placed a moratorium on the all wetland delineations, unless requested by the landowner, pending the outcome of several pieces of legislation. What is the status of this moratorium? Response. The Secretary's moratorium for conducting widespread wetland determinations is still in place. Since the 1990 Farm Bill, we have essentially only responded to requests from farmers and ranchers who need wetland determinations when they plan to clear land or manipulate the hydrology of an area. wetland delineation tracking Mr. Skeen. At last year's hearing you were unable to provide the Committee with a detailed annual breakout of costs associated with wetland delineations. You were in the process of implementing a module in the field office computer system that would track outputs of all wetland determinations including those that are certified by wetland type and year. What is the status of this module? Are you now able to provide this information. Response. The module to track wetland determinations is the Field Office Computer System. As wetland determinations are certified, they are recorded in the system. We are not inputing all previous wetland determinations since they may not be valid for Swampbuster and the Clean Water Act, Section 404. We are not able to provide you with a detailed annual breakdown of costs associated with making wetland determinations. An average per acre cost of a delineation would not be very meaningful or representative. There are fixed costs, i.e., collecting and evaluating soils, hydrology & vegetative data, evaluating previous or planned manipulations of hydrology, viewing and interpreting aerial photos, other remotely sensed data and making a field visit to the site regardless of size or complexity. There are also variable costs associated with the type, complexity, and size of wetlands on a given tract of land. wetland determinations Mr. Skeen. The original plan to complete wetland determinations and certifications on all 4 million tracts of agricultural land was by fiscal year 1999. At last year's hearing you told the Committee this timeframe had been extended to 2001. What is the status of this initiative? Response. We have abandoned our plan to make wetland determinations on all land operated by USDA program participants. A wetland determination is not a condition of eligibility. Only land owners/ operators who plan to manipulate a wetland need to seek a determination to insure they do not violate the wetland conservation provisions of the Act. Under this policy the responsibility for compliance with the wetland provisions rests with the landowner. Mr. Skeen. How many landowners requested determinations in fiscal year 1996? Response. In fiscal year 1996 we conducted 67,980 wetland determinations at the request of clients. Many of these requests were generated by persons applying for Agricultural Market Transition Act contracts. wetland delineation appeals Mr. Skeen. How many appeals are currently awaiting decision by the National Appeals Division? Response. We currently have 14 appeal decisions pending by the National Appeals Division. Mr. Skeen. Your goal was to have all wetland determinations loaded in the new automation module by December 31, 1996 to provide a comprehensive national database and an automated report for clients. Did this happen? Response. No, it did not happen. Based on higher priority conservation initiatives and new programs in the 1996 Farm Bill that I've previously mentioned, our field staff have been primarily focusing on the most pressing and urgent matters in lieu of loading ten-year wetland determinations into the computer database. wrp staff years and related costs Mr. Skeen. How many staff years did you use and at what cost to carryout the WRP program in fiscal year 1996? Response. In fiscal year 1996, 178 staff years are associated with technical assistance activities for the WRP at a cost of $12,481,257. Mr. Skeen. What are the total salary costs needed to administer WRP in fiscal years 1997 and 1998? What are the total other than salary costs needed in both years? Response. The total salary costs needed to administer the WRP in fiscal year 1997 are approximately $12,327,442, and $18,200,000 in 1998 for a combined total of $31,000,000. In addition, the total other than salary costs needed for both years are for 1997 approximately $118,712,000 are requested in CCC funds for enrollment of 130,000 acres to include $58.911 million for permanent easements, easement restoration costs, and easement overhead costs. $53.301 million are requested for 30-year temporary easements to include easement payments, easement restoration costs, and easement overhead costs. Also, $6.500 million are requested for restoration cost-share agreements. For fiscal year 1998, approximately $163.597 million in CCC funds are requested for an enrollment of 212,000 acres to include $94.167 million for permanent easements, easement restoration costs, and easement overhead costs. $58.830 million are requested for 30-year temporary easements, easement restoration costs, and easement overhead costs. Also, $10.600 million are requested to fund restoration cost-share agreements. technical assistance reimbursement for wrp Mr. Skeen. Will you receive any reimbursement from CCC in fiscal years 1997 and 1998 for technical assistance of WRP? Response. No, CCC funds now available for reimbursement are not needed to support the WRP technical assistance needs in these years as long as the unobligated WRP funds are available for technical assistance. The current reimbursable cap for CCC is set at the 1995 spending level of less than $50 million, and various agencies other than NRCS are competing for the very same limited funding source to support activities on behalf of CCC. Funding for salary and other salary related costs for WRP for 1997 and 1998 will be made through the use of unobligated 1996 WRP appropriated funds, which are not under CCC restrictions. ccc financial assistance for wrp Mr. Skeen. In fiscal year 1997, $106 million in CCC financial assistance funds will be used to enroll approximately 130,000 acres. In fiscal year 1998, you propose to enroll an additional 212,000 acres. What is the CCC financial assistance funds needed for 212,000 acres? Response. For 1997 approximately $118,712,000 of CCC funds will be utilized for WRP financial assistance to enroll approximately 130,000 acres at a cost of $106 million. In addition, the $118 million will also support contracts funded under the old WRP of $12,327,442, which was needed to pay unfunded WRP technical assistance needs for 1997. For 1998, approximately $163,597,000 will be used for financial assistance costs, to enroll 212,000 acres at a cost of $145 million. The 1998 request will also support $18,200,000 in old WRP contracts, which was also used to pay unfunded 1998 technical assistance needs that are not available under the current CCC section 11 cap. The funds used from the old WRP account to pay for 1997 and 1998 technical assistance needs, had to be replaced under CCC to fund old WRP contract payments coming due. wrp mandatory program Mr. Skeen. Briefly describe the accounting of the new WRP program? Response. Under the new WRP, funded through CCC, reporting of accounting transactions are treated slightly different than under normal appropriated fund accounts. An individual appropriation is not requested under the new WRP as was in the past, but rather a dollar limit is imposed so as not to exceed the projected program cost. Under CCC for WRP, whatever is obligated will be outlayed similar to a ``pay- as-you-go'' system. Bills will be submitted to CCC for liabilities incurred under the new WRP and will be paid. Unobligated CCC funds for WRP will not be apparent based on a ``pay-as-you-go system'' since the total amount of obligations will equal the total amount of outlays for the program, subject to the dollar limit imposed for spending of CCC funds made available for a WRP program sign-up. partnership projects for restoration Mr. Skeen. During fiscal year 1996, states were encouraged to identify restoration projects where another partner would be willing to contribute to the effort. These projects could then be added to the backlog list and considered for funding with the remaining 1996 program funds. How many of these projects were identified and added to the backlog list? Response. There were 14 projects added to the backlog list under the 1996 partnership effort. state conservationists Mr. Skeen. Are State Conservationists political appointees? Response. No, State Conservationists are career employees who have worked in NRCS and have advanced through the career process. conservation compliance and conservation operations Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 577 of last year's hearing record, showing the amount appropriated for conservation operations and the amount spent on conservation compliance provisions, to include fiscal year 1997. [The information follows:] CONSERVATION COMPLIANCE AND CONSERVATION OPERATIONS EXPENDITURES [Dollars in thousands] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Conservation Conservation Fiscal year operation compliance ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1986........................................ 348,669 57,532 1987........................................ 399,671 165,993 1988........................................ 444,391 183,219 1989........................................ 465,435 193,347 1990........................................ 477,377 198,347 1991........................................ 509,509 213,131 1992........................................ 564,251 238,960 1993........................................ 576,740 245,093 1994........................................ 603,408 261,835 1995........................................ 612,242 279,158 1996........................................ 629,794 251,918 1997........................................ 619,961 247,984 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ headquarters staff Mr. Skeen. You stated last year that you expected to meet your goal of reducing headquarters staff by 50 percent and state staff by 30 percent by October 1997. Are you still on schedule to reach this goal? Response. Yes, we are on target to meet our goals of reducing headquarters' and States' staff. major functional changes Mr. Skeen. In your testimony you state that on January 30, 1997, further adjustments of the headquarters' structure were approved by the Department. Briefly describe these changes and the impact they will have on staff and program management. Also submit a structure diagram of the new NRCS for Headquarters and the field. Response. The goal of the NHQ reorganization was to realign and restructure the current NHQ organization based on our reorganization appraisals and the Blue Ribbon Report on National Resources Inventory and Performance Management. The goal was not to reduce staffing levels, but to ensure an optimum organization structure for the Agency. Every employee has a position at the same grade level and in the same local commuting area under the new structure. There are no changes to the Agency's budget as a result of the reorganization. Following is a listing of the major functional changes. highlighted major functional changes 1. Establish a new Deputy Chief for Soil Survey and Resource Assessment. This new deputy is responsible for all programs and activities related to the collection of natural resource and soils data, the assessment of natural resource status, natural resources conditions and trends, policy analysis, and strategic planning. 2. Deputy Chief for Programs to better reflect the focus of the Deputy Area. It established a Department of Agriculture Program Outreach Division as a result of the transfer of the Secretary's Section 2501 program from the Farm Service Agency to NRCS. Also transferred to this division are the 1890 and Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities programs from the Deputy Chief for Management. A Civil Rights Program Compliance Division to align Title 6 responsibilities with program operations was also established. 3. Name change from Deputy Chief for Soil Science and Resources Assessment to Deputy Chief for Science and Technology to more adequately align the Deputy Chief with the science and technology consortium of divisions, institutes, and centers which the Deputy Chief supervises. 4. Name change from Deputy Chief for Management and Strategic Planning to Deputy Chief for Management due to the transfer of strategic planning functions to the new Deputy Area. As the result of the separation of Titles 6 and 7 responsibilities, it established the Civil Rights Employment Division to provide leadership for Title 7. The old Information Resources Management Division is now called the Information Technology Division to reflect a refocus on technology, and the addition of the Chief Information Officer centralized leadership and decision-making relative to information technology agency-wide. [Page 527--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 585 of last year's hearing record, showing the personnel and funding level for each of the four regional technical centers and the six new regional offices that were established through reorganization to include fiscal year 1997. Also include in this table the amount spent by headquarters to support the institutes. [The information follows:] [Page 529--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] state and local contributions Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on pages 634 and 635 of last year's hearing record, showing the state and local appropriations for conservation district program activities, to include fiscal year 1996 actuals and fiscal year 1997 estimates. [The information follows:] CONSERVATION PROGRAM ACTIVITIES [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ State Local Fiscal year government government NRCS \1\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1986............................. 158,498 119,349 674,327 1987............................. 175,550 132,398 642,995 1988............................. 286,184 151,528 686,560 1989............................. 253,424 140,176 704,103 1990............................. 269,105 238,325 802,499 1991............................. 282,357 231,052 771,967 1992............................. 290,730 203,133 900,196 1993............................. 368,201 165,031 935,917 1994............................. 299,275 202,773 1,260,491 1995............................. 309,297 209,390 832,209 1996............................. 514,851 220,951 940,314 1997 estimate.................... 453,813 242,446 833,228 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Includes Emergency Watershed Program appropriations. Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 638 of last year's hearing record to show the total amount of technical assistance that will be provided to all conservation programs under your jurisdiction as well as a breakout of the amount transferred from CCC and the amount to come from your conservation operations appropriation. [The information follows:] TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR ALL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS [Dollars in thousands] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal years Program ------------------------- 1997 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NRCS Technical Assistance: Conservation Technical Assistance......... $528,892 $549,241 Soil Surveys.............................. 76,409 82,248 Snow Surveys and Water Supply Forecasting. 5,835 5,888 Operation of Plant Materials Centers...... 8,825 8,891 Water Resources Assistance................ 86,849 76,000 Resource Conservation & Development....... 29,317 47,640 Wetlands Reserve Program \1\.............. 12,327 18,200 Colorado River Salinity Control Program... 0 0 Water Bank Program........................ 0 0 Great Plains Conservation Program......... 0 0 Rural Abandoned Mine Program.............. 0 0 ------------------------- Total, Appropriated..................... 748,454 788,108 ========================= Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC): Conservation Reserve Program \2\.......... 78,175 35,375 Environmental Quality Incentives Program.. 20,000 20,000 Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program \2\... 5,000 7,500 Conservation Farm Option.................. 500 3,750 Farmland Protection Program............... 80 720 ------------------------- Total, CCC.............................. 103,755 67,345 ========================= Total, NRCS & CCC Combined.............. 852,209 855,453 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Technical assistance for this program is being provided out of NRCS carryover finds in FY 1997 and FY 1998. \2\ Technical assistance for these programs is being provided out of FSA carryover funds in 1997 and 1998. conservation compliance Mr. Skeen. The 1996 Farm Bill amended conservation compliance requirements and made changes in the administration of compliance activities. What is the impact of both on the future of compliance achievements and environmental goals? Response. We feel that the impact of both on the future of compliance achievements and environmental goals is positive. The 1996 Farm Bill and the related Highly Erodible Land Interim Rule and National Food Security Act Manual Policy changes are designed to make the compliance provisions more farmer friendly, while improving and strengthening conservation system requirements. methane emissions Mr. Skeen. Your agency has been involved over the years in a number of projects regarding the reduction of methane emissions. The President's Climate Change Action Plan identifies 44 specific action items to be addressed by the Federal Government and industry. NRCS is involved in three of these items and allocated $2.7 million in fiscal year 1996 to support them. Specifically how long have these projects been ongoing, how much has been provided to date, and what are your plans for future continuation of each item? Response. NRCS continued to actively participate in three of the Action Items during fiscal year 1996. Action Item #17 ``Improve Efficiency of Fertilizer Nitrogen Use''. Since 1995, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has funded a variety of nitrogen fertilizer use efficiency projects. During that three year period, $2,514,000 have been allocated from the NRCS budget for nitrogen fertilizer use efficiency projects. For the current fiscal year, $781,000 dollars are allocated for nitrogen fertilizer activity. The NRCS projects have focused on three major areas including demonstration projects, technology development and transfer, and information. Nitrogen fertilizers contribute to global climate change in two major ways. These include emissions from facilities that produce commercial nitrogen fertilizer and volatilization losses into the atmosphere after nitrogen has been applied as a fertilizer. The thrust of the NRCS nitrogen fertilizer projects has focused on the substitution of nitrogen produced by fixation from legumes grown in the cropping sequence for some of the commercial nitrogen fertilizer that would otherwise be used, and on technology to evaluate nitrogen fertilizer management systems that minimize volatilization losses to the atmosphere. Demonstration projects that incorporate legume cover crops into the cropping system have been conducted in 6 states on corn, vegetables, and cotton. Manure composing and utilization projects have been done in 4 other states. These four projects have focused on using animal manures as a nitrogen source for pine production, chemical treatment to reduce nitrogen volatilization losses, and reducing quantities of commercial nitrogen fertilizer used. In fiscal year 1996, NRCS funded an enhancement to the Nitrogen Leaching and Economic Analysis Package (NLEAP) model developed by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). The enhancement allows the model to evaluate both leaching and volatilization losses of nitrogen to ground water and to the atmosphere. The focus of NRCS activities in fiscal year 1997 is on evaluation of nitrogen management for corn, cotton, and potato production. NLEAP will be used to evaluate current and alternative nitrogen management strategies in 13 states. This work will identify nitrogen management systems that minimize nitrogen leaching and volatilization losses. Management systems that minimize these losses will help achieve both water quality and global climate goals. NRCS plans to continue work on projects that improve nitrogen fertilizer use efficiency in American agriculture. The NLEAP work that is the focus of the agency's activities in fiscal year 1997 will be continued and expanded in fiscal year 1998. Contingent upon the availability of resources, analysis of nitrogen management on corn, cotton, and potatoes will continue and be expanded to include other states and other high nitrogen using crops. Action Item #38--``Expand AgSTAR Partnership with Livestock Producers''--This project is a cooperative effort between the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). AgSTAR is a voluntary Federal program that encourages the use of effective technologies to capture methane gas, generated from the decomposition of animal waste, for use as an energy resources (biogas). NRCS has been involved with the AgSTAR program for the last three fiscal years. During that period, NRCS has allocated $1,000,000 each fiscal year to 13 different states for support of AgSTAR activities. Fiscal year 1997 allocations of $250,000 each were made to the States of California, North Carolina, Iowa and Texas. Efforts are underway around the country to sign up AgSTAR Partners. A livestock producer becomes a Partner by signing a ``Memorandum of Understanding'' (MOU) with the U.S. EPA. The Partner agrees to survey the facility, install methane recovery systems where profitable, and complete installation within 3 years. Currently there are approximately 37 partners representing 165 farms with approximately 140 of those being hog farms. Odor control benefits of biogas capture and EPA recognition are being recognized by livestock producers as additional benefits of the technology resulting in increased interest in the program. Additional signups are ongoing. During fiscal year 1996/97, a demonstration project was completed at the Barham Farm in North Carolina. The Barham Farm is a 4,000 sow, farrow to wean operation using covered anaerobic lagoon technology. Biogas is used directly for heating the buildings and also for generation of electricity. While the electrical generator is not yet in full operation, use of biogas in place of propane has already resulted in substantial savings in propane costs for the operation. A field demonstration of the site was held in conjunction with a conference promoting the AgSTAR program in February 1997. Participants representing producers and other interested organizations from throughout the U.S. were in attendance. Additional AgSTAR demonstration farms are located in Oregon (Craven Farms) and New York (Aaman Farms). During fiscal year 1996/97, an engineering position, cooperatively funded by the EPA and NRCS was established and filled in Raleigh, North Carolina. The engineer occupying this position serves as a regional specialist in environmental engineering and biogas recovery, providing technical leadership in biogas recovery to State conservationists, the Director of the Caribbean Area, and national headquarters staff. Duties include on-farm assistance to solve problems, feasibility assessments of existing technology, planning, design and construction support of specialized animal waste systems, and operation and maintenance supervision of the system. In order to support technical implementation of the program, three technical standards have been developed to be included in the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG). Those standards are: Covered Anaerobic Lagoon, Plug Flow Digester and Complete Mix Digester. The final version of the Covered Anaerobic Lagoon has been issued and is available under technical reference material on the NRCS Homepage. The final drafts of the Plug Flow Digester and Complete Mix Digester have been completed with an anticipated issue date of May 1997. Finally, a public review draft of an AgSTAR Handbook has been completed and distributed for review and comment. The handbook includes the latest upgrade of the FarmWare software (Version 2.0) which can be used to evaluate the feasibility of installation of biogas generation and recovery technologies on any given farm operation. NRCS plans to continue to support this program as part of the actions taken to address the issues outlined by ``The Climate Change Action Plan'', issued by President Clinton. NRCS has also been an active partner in Action Item #39. Action Item #39 Improve Ruminant Productivity and Product Marketing has been a cooperative effort of NRCS and EPA for three years. NRCS has provided $2,950,000 to develop and assist producers in implementing voluntary conservation practices that can improve ruminant livestock productivity on the farm. NRCS will continue to provide voluntary conservation technical assistance to livestock producers that improve ruminant productivity. model farms demonstrating reduction of methane emissions Mr. Skeen. What is the status of your plans to establish ten model farms in each of the southeastern states and Puerto Rico in cooperation with three universities to demonstrate practices that will result in the lowest rate of methane generation per unit of production? Include where these model farms will be located, what universities will conduct the research, and the total cost to carry out this initiative. Response. A cooperative agreement between NRCS and EPA established the criteria for development of at least one model farm in each of ten southeastern states and Puerto Rico. Forty-three grazing land management livestock efficiency projects have been undertaken in the southeast. Seventeen have been established and are being implemented (Alabama-1, Caribbean Area-1, Georgia-3, Kentucky-1, Louisiana-2, Mississippi-4, Tennessee-1, Virginia-3). Planning has been completed for twenty-six (Alabama-1, Kentucky-2, South Carolina-20, North Carolina-3). NRCS has provided $1,168,000 to implement and support this project. EPA provided $1 million to NRCS, to administer the development of field trials at three universities in the southeast, as part of the interagency cooperative agreement. NRCS has assisted the University of Tennessee, the University of Georgia, and the University of Southwestern Louisiana in the design and implementation of field trails to determine how conservation management can improve ruminate livestock production efficiency. These field trails are being conducted at each of the universities' farm centers. soil surveys Mr. Skeen. How many soil surveys were completed and published in fiscal year 1996, and how many do you expect to publish in fiscal year 1997? Response. In fiscal year 1996, forty seven soil surveys were completed, and 33 of those were published. In fiscal year 1997, fifty four soil surveys have already been made ready for publication and we expect another 20 by the end of the fiscal year. We currently expect that all of these will be sent for publication in fiscal year 1997. soil survey printing and distribution costs Mr. Skeen. Copies of soil surveys are printed for both public and congressional use. A provision in the 1996 Farm Bill allows for more discretion in the number of surveys that are provided to Congress and the public. What impact has this provision had on printing and distribution costs? Response. The provision in the 1996 Farm Bill eliminated the requirement of printing Congressional copies of soil surveys. However, knowing that most of those Congressional copies were distributed to the residents within the area surveyed we had always included those when we calculated the total number of published copies needed for a particular area. The impact the provision has had is that it has given us more freedom in publication formats, and in selecting who will publish the surveys for us. We are now providing soil survey information in two hard copy formats, the traditional boundcopy and a newer format suitable for 3-ring binders. We are also providing soil survey information on tape, on CD-ROM, and on the internet. We are trying to better meet the customer needs by providing information in the format that will be best for the particular customer. We anticipate the 3-ring binder format will become our standard hard copy format, and that will save us about 35% of our current publication cost. In addition, we will be printing only a 2 year supply of publications for each survey area rather than the entire anticipated need for an area. When the two year supply is exhausted we will print more copies since all surveys will be imprinted on CD's. This print on demand capability will save the cost of storage of a twenty to twenty five year supply of surveys and the associated wastage. The 3-ring binder format also makes updating soil surveys more cost effective as only the pages needing updating need to be republished. All of these improvements taken together provide us with an anticipated savings in publication costs of about 50% which will enable us to begin to make significant inroads in reducing our current publication backlog of about 200 soil survey reports. geographic information system activities Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 642 of last year's hearing record showing the amount spent on GIS activities to include fiscal year 1998. Also, breakout the U.S. Geological Survey from the other category. [The information follows:] [Page 534--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] national soil information system status Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the National Soil Information System? Response. The current version of the National Soil Information System--known as NASIS 3.0--is installed at 20 state offices around the country with 17 more offices scheduled to install the software in April. In these offices, all of our existing soil survey data have been converted to NASIS. In the remaining offices, our existing soil survey data are being converted to a previous version of the National Soil Information System before NASIS 3.0 can be installed. Already, NASIS is being used to manage soil survey data in some of our soil survey field offices throughout the country. In the West, in particular, our partners in soil survey--the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of Indian Affairs--are using NASIS in some of their offices to manage soil survey data and create their own interpretations and reports from the data. We are continuing to develop the National Soil Information System in cooperation with the Federal Geographic Data Committee, our National Cooperative Soil Survey partners, and the Information Technology Center in Fort Collins, Colorado. The next release of NASIS software will be in June of this year. This release will provide, for the first time, a nationally consistent and accessible client/server database architecture. This will provide all NASIS users immediate access to the nationally complete set of soil data, including all of the new interpretive capabilities. It will also provide soils data in a format suitable for use with the Field Office Computing System and the Soil Survey Geographic Database. other federal, state and local soil survey funding Mr. Skeen. Provide a table that shows the amount of funding contributed by other Federal, state, and local entities for soil surveys for fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997. [The information follows:] SOIL SURVEY PROGRAM REIMBURSEMENTS [By Source for fiscal year 1995, 1996, and 1997] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal year-- year-- 1995 year-- 1996 1997\1\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ USDA............................. 1,284,556 851.365 800,000 Other Federal.................... 2,094,611 1,716,438 2,000,000 State & Local.................... 2,859,655 2,820,210 2,800,000 Private.......................... 133,821 194,391 150,000 -------------------------------------- Total...................... 6,372,643 5,582,404 5,750,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Fiscal year 1997 is an estimate since we are in the midst of the year. Other funding to support the development of GIS capabilities in USDA Field Service Center offices, such as funding for procurement of digital orthophotography, does benefit the soil survey program. It is not, however, received by the agency as soil survey reimbursable funding. soil surveys Mr. Skeen. How many soil surveys that were done on a county basis need to be remapped using natural landscape boundaries? Response. Soil Survey information, like any other kind of information, must meet the current needs of customers if it is to remain useful. Soil Survey information is now available for about 94% of the nation's privately owned land and for about 76% of the entire country. The soil surveys we call modern soil surveys have been conducted over the last 50 years, and with the changing needs of modern customers that has left us with a patch work quilt of soil surveys across the nation. Some meeting current needs, some not. We estimate that about 20% of the soil surveys are out of date and need some form of updating to meet current customer expectations. This would be about 400 soil survey areas. We have, within the last year, reorganized the soil survey mapping activities from a county by county process to one that is organized around areas of similar geology, climate, and soils, a natural landscape basis, if you will. The reason we did this was to provide a more efficient way of bringing older soil surveys up to current standards, correct mismatches between soil survey areas, and at the same time develop simplified legends more usable with GIS technology. Our objective is to bring these older surveys up to standard over a period of years, and maintain them, not letting them get out of date. This replaces our past thinking that soil surveys are only good for 20 to 25 years, then they have to be ``remapped''. soil and pesticide database Mr. Skeen. Describe in further detail the soil and pesticide database including how it works, what type of data is collected, and how it is collected, who uses this database and for what purpose? Response. The soil and pesticide database is in reality two databases. The data contained in these databases is integrated in several water quality assessment tools such as the NRCS Soil Pesticide Interaction Screening Procedure (SPISP) tool. The NRCS's SPISP planning tool provides the resource planner with an assessment of the interaction between the pesticide and the soil upon which it was applied. Farmers, ranchers, and other resource managers use SPISP to assess a pesticide relative impact on the ground and surface water resources and to select the pesticides with the least potential hazard. Another assessment tool used by NRCS field personnel to determine a pesticide's impact on the water resource is the National Pesticide Risk Assessment (NAPRA). The NAPRA tool is an automated tool that uses the data contained in the soil and pesticide databases to determine a water quality risk factor when a specific pesticide is applied to a specified soil. Soil data used for water quality assessment tools are collected during the soil survey process. The key soil properties for these evaluations are a soil's surface layer thickness, surface layer organic matter content, erosion factor (K factor), and hydrologic group. A soil's pesticide interaction rating is then obtained through a series of several mathematical calculations. The pesticide properties database is a collection of physical and chemical property data which affect the environmental fate of pesticides. Some properties measured include solubility in water and field half life in soil. Data are available for most of the currently registered agricultural pesticides. Single values for each property are selected from wide ranges found in published studies and manufacturer research. Because these values can vary widely, care is taken to choose properties for each pesticide relative to other similar pesticides. This database is essential for the NRCS Field Office Computing System Pesticide Screening Tool, NAPRA, Hydrologic Unit--Water Quality and other water quality models such as GLEAMS, EPIC, AGNPS and SWRRBWQ and PRZM. plant material centers operating costs Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 845 of last year's hearing record showing the plant materials centers annual operating costs to reflect fiscal year 1995 actuals and fiscal year 1997 estimates. [The information follows:] [Page 537--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] new plant releases in fiscal year 1996 Mr. Skeen. Did you release any new plants in fiscal year 1996? If so, please provide a brief description of each. Response. There were 43 plant releases in 1996. Five were cultivar releases, 28 were germplasm, tested and selected, one of which NRCS was not the primary agency, releases, and 10 were source identified releases of selected ecotypes. Brief descriptive information follows. [Pages 539 - 544--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] west virginia plant materials center Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the plant materials center being established in Alderson, West Virginia? Response. Land acquisition has been successfully completed and efforts are now primarily directed toward establishing physical facilities from which to operate. The conceptual design package dealing with buildings to be constructed at the Plant Materials Center is nearing completion. It is scheduled to be reviewed by the end of March so that bids can be received. By late April, it is anticipated that the contract can be awarded for the construction of buildings. Land preparation activities will get underway later this spring to move plants from Quicksand, KY to the Alderson plant center. Tillage work on 10-20 acres is scheduled to control weed problems prior to planting. Current budget constraints, however, will require that the effort be accomplished in stages over a 3-4 year period before the center is fully functional. royalty collections for plant release Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the mechanism for collecting royalties for new plant releases that has been established and how much has been collected to date? Response. The mechanism for collecting royalties is in place and is being implemented where it is applicable. However, the process of implementation is an extended one with all the detailed requirements of the Plant Variety Protection Act. Experience has shown that a 2-3 year time interval is not unusual. In addition, it should be noted that current focus on releases in the Plant Materials Program is directed toward tested and source identified releases instead of cultivars. In 1996, for example, only 7 of 35 releases were cultivars. Since only cultivars are eligible for PVP consideration, associated royalties will be small in comparison to the overall impact of releases being produced. the emphasis on non-cultivar releases has been undertaken to meet immediate needs for plant materials on a more timely bases. Royalties are now being collected for `Rush' intermediate wheatgrass. The cultivar is one that was developed and released by Idaho. The amount received for the cultivar is 8 cents/pound or about 3% of the selling price. In 1996, this resulted in about $7,000 in royalties. No additional royalties have been collected for other species. To summarize the situation, plant centers have initiated action to have royalties collected for a few species, but none have yet finished the process. plant materials projects with the department of defense Mr. Skeen. What types of projects are you developing with the Department of Defense in the plant materials area. Response. There have been several cooperative efforts between the Plant Materials Program and DOD involving restoration of disturbed land on military bases. Specific plant materials work with the Army has included centers in Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, New Mexico, Arizona, and Mississippi. The primary focus of this work has been for plant materials personnel to provide technical knowledge, planning expertise, and planting techniques needed. Several habitats and study approaches have been involved, including: control of runoff water, soil stabilization, environmental plantings, and reclamation of sites ranging from deserts to wetlands. Most deal directly with restoration efforts. It is clear that the plant Materials Program can play a vital role in meeting restoration needs for the Department of Defense. Current and prior interactions have established an effective relationship. An NRCS liaison staff person, funded by the Armyhas been located at Aberdeen, MD to facilitate cooperative efforts. Military bases have a training mission to fulfill which results in land disturbance, and NRCS Plant Materials Program has a mission to develop and transfer technology to address this situation. This lends itself to a productive interaction. plant materials and buffer strips Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the plant center evaluations of using grass and other plant species as vegetative buffer strips and the use of alternative species for creating fresh water wetlands? Response. Plant centers recognize the importance and potential of using buffer strips to solve conservation problems and for creating fresh water wetlands. As a result many are actively involved in such efforts. Specific details follow. [Page 546--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] watershed and river basin planning studies Mr. Skeen. Please list all watershed planning studies, cooperative river basin studies and flood plain management studies that are currently in progress including when they started, the cost of each, and when you expect them to be completed. [Pages 548 - 554--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] cooperative river basin and management studies Mr. Skeen. A total of 36 Cooperatives River Basin Surveys and 15 flood plain management studies were started in fiscal year 1996. How many are planned for fiscal year 1997? Response. We project that 24 cooperative river basin studies and 10 floodplain management studies will be initiated in fiscal year 1997. central and southern florida flood control project restudy Mr. Skeen. Describe in further detail the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project Restudy which is expected to be completed within four years. Response. This study is being carried out by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, not NCRS. flood plain management study follow-up Mr. Skeen. Once a flood plain management study is completed, do you conduct any follow-up studies to see if the recommendations made were acted upon and if they were, to see how they are working and what impact they had? Response. We have no formal policy to follow up of flood plain management studies. Our local district conservationist encourages the governmental entity to utilize the information. Since the sponsors contribute 25 percent of the cost, they undoubtedly make use of the study. purchase of flood plain easement Mr. Skeen. The 1996 farm bill amended the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 to allow for the purchase of flood plain easements. Has this authority been used yet this year? Response. We have developed the concepts we think will be appropriate for the purchase of floodplain easements. A pilot test on the flood of 1997 will be run once the supplemental appropriation is received. It is estimated that there could be enough willing sellers for as much as $15 million. In California alone, there are owners of 3,000 acres who have already indicated a willingness to sell. program evaluation studies Mr. Skeen. How many program evaluation studies were carried out in fiscal year 1996? Response. One program evaluation study was carried out in fiscal year 1996, the Wetland Reserve Program Evaluation. Mr. Skeen. How many are planned for fiscal year 1997? Response. There are six evaluations planned for fiscal year 1997. They are the Soil Survey Program Evaluation, the American Indian/Alaska Native Program Delivery Evaluation, the Conservation Planning Program Evaluation, the Emergency Watershed Protection Program Evaluation, the Conservation Reserve Program Evaluation, and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program Evaluation. [Pages 556 - 585--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] new and planned pl-566 projects Mr. Skeen. Please provide a list of all new small watershed construction projects started in fiscal year 1996 and those planned to start in fiscal year 1997. Include the Federal and non-Federal cost of each project. [The information follows:] P.L. 566 PROJECTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name Fed cost Nonfed cost ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In 1996: Lake Carlinville, IL................... 296,000 258,000 Lake Taylorville, IL................... 984,800 1,251,200 Hickory Creek, MO...................... 4,891,600 1,155,900 Marthasville Town Branch, MO........... 874,500 242,900 Nahunta Swamp, NC...................... 1,064,480 955,200 Asaayi Lake, NM........................ 1,732,500 446,500 Buck Hollow, OR........................ 2,462,700 2,117,300 Monastery Run, PA...................... 575,000 568,000 Fall River--North Unit, SD............. 534,900 1,432,200 Fall River--South Unit, SD............. 1,632,000 4,209,000 Lick Creek (1995), TN.................. 2,118,261 834,399 Omak Creek, WA......................... 2,102,000 930,000 North Platte River, WY................. 3,077,700 1,168,300 In 1997: Hohokam, AZ............................ 5,770,000 2,781,000 White Tank Mountains, AZ............... 1,351,000 10,000 Red-White Clay Creek, PA............... 5,548,000 2,332,000 AUA, PB................................ 263,300 145,400 Muddy-Creek Orderville, UT............. 263,500 97,490 Chestnut Creek, VA..................... 5,039,766 1,161,857 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ acres covered by pl-566 projects Mr. Skeen. I read where 35 million acres are covered by PL-534 projects. How many acres are covered by the 531 PL-566 projects? Response. The 531 active PL-566 projects cover 48 million acres. watershed and flood prevention operations unobligated balance Mr. Skeen. Please explain the $52,543,313 unobligated balance available at the end of fiscal year 1996 in the watershed and flood prevention operations program. Response. The $52,543,313 unobligated balance carried forward is the result of an emergency supplemental appropriation release in June, 1996. $80.5 million was made available to NRCS for the Emergency Watershed Protection Program on May 22, 1996. Supplemental appropriations late in the fiscal year result in large unobligated balances carried forward to the new fiscal year. Unobligated balances carried forward in the annually appropriated Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations PL-566 and PL-534 are generally less than $4 million and are due to late year failure to obligate because of land rights or permitting difficulties experienced by project sponsors. other federal and non-federal obligations Mr. Skeen. Provide a detailed breakout of the other Federal and non-Federal sources of obligations for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998. [The information follows:] [Page 587--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] increase in non-federal reimbursements Mr. Skeen. Why do obligations from non-Federal sources increase from $11,986,893 in fiscal year 1996 to $19,167,000 in fiscal year 1997? Response. Obligations from non-Federal sources are expected to increase in fiscal year 1997 based primarily on the anticipated Emergency Watershed Protection program activities. wetlands created or restored Mr. Skeen. Of the 46,925 acres of wetlands created or restored, why was 62 percent or 28,930 acres located in Nebraska? Response. This information was based on a new data base that we are in the process of building. A note with the table stated that all states had not reported yet. It also takes a few iterations of data submissions to get it right. The Nebraska numbers are correct, and we will work with other states to get consistent data for next year. total wetlands acres Mr. Skeen. Why are 507,295 of the 525,449 total acres of wetlands enhanced located in South Carolina? Response. Again, this information was based on partial data available in the new data base at the time the budget was prepared. upland habitat acres Mr. Skeen. Is this the same reason why 74 percent of the upland habitat dedicated acres and 65 percent of the upland habitat enhanced acres are located in California? Response. Yes. The percentages will change when the data base is completed to include all states that had not reported when the budget was prepared and sent to you. We anticipate it taking a few iterations of data submissions to get all the bugs worked out of the system. wetlands and upland habitat created or enhanced Mr. Skeen. In total, of the four program outcomes of wetlands and upland habitat created or enhanced by acre, four states (Alabama, California, Nebraska, and South Carolina) make up 89 percent of the total acreage. Why? Response. Those states were the ones that had completed their data input for the new data base at the time the numbers were made available for the budget. We will be glad to provide you with more up to date information as soon as we have verified it. geographic breakdown of obligations for watershed operations Mr. Skeen. On the geographic breakdown of obligations and staff years for watershed and flood prevention operations, why are there no staff years shown? Response. This change occurs because of a technical change proposed in the 1998 budget. Technical assistance and staff years for watershed and flood prevention are shown under conservation operations under the new water resources assistance line item activity for fiscal year 1998. The dollars under watershed and flood prevention are financial assistance only. Mr. Skeen. Why do three states show a negative value in the fiscal year 1996 column? Response. Three states Hawaii, North Dakota, and Rhode Island--show negative values in the fiscal year 1996 column due to an accounting transaction for credit disbursements or deobligations from prior year contracts which exceeded new dollars spent in 1996. Mr. Skeen. Why will some states that received funding in fiscal year 1996 receive no funding in fiscal year 1997? Response. Some states had not requested financial assistance program funding at the beginning of the year. All states that have requested funding, except Rhode Island and North Dakota, have currently received funding in the following amounts: Arizona $1 million; Delaware $300,000; Michigan $400,000; Minnesota $300,000; New Mexico $300,000; Pacific Basin $85,000; and South Carolina $200,000. one-plan concept or whole farm or ranch approach Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the agreement with the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation to explore the one-plan concept or whole farm or ranch approach for conservation activities? Response. Under phase 1 of the agreement, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture--Research Foundation--NASDA-RF-- completed a series of meetings with farmers, ranchers, and agricultural consultants/advisors in eighteen focus groups in eight states. There were 1,100 recorded comments. The major points of farmers and ranchers input were incorporated and transmitted to the Chief, NRCS, as part of the NRCS's Material Development Team Report on ``Resource Management Planning'' on September 11, 1996. Currently under the agreement, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture--Research Foundation--NASDA-RF is working cooperatively with NRCS, Environmental Protection Agency--EPA, and the Arkansas National Center for Agricultural Law Research and Information to prepare a reference guide for each State documenting the environmental laws affecting agriculture for that particular state. These guides are being developed as a resource tool to assist farmers and ranchers in becoming more aware of specific laws and regulations that affect agriculture in their state. These guides will also include a list of reference contacts for additional assistance. status of backlogged projects Mr. Skeen. The agency has been reviewing all authorized projects to update and either modify or delete backlogged projects. What is the status of this initiative? Response. NRCS is currently providing assistance with implementation on more than 500 active watershed projects. The federal unfunded commitment--federal dollars, as identified in watershed plans, that remain to be paid to install watershed measures--began in 1958 and by the 1970s, grew to nearly $2.0 billion. At the end of 1996 that commitment was $881 million, having been reduced by nearly $360 million over the past two years. In addition to installing a number of priority measures, watershed sponsors, NRCS, and other stakeholders accomplished a reduction by reviewing all remaining project measures and eliminating some of those which are no longer economically and environmentally feasible. The primary initiative itself is over. It resulted in the deletion of 1900 miles of channel work and 410 structures from watershed plans. Further reductions and revisions are presently being considered as planning staffs continue to prepare supplements. Funds will be made available to projects according to a competitive funding mechanism for targeting assistance toward the highest ranked projects. These are the high-priority projects that provide the highest net benefits to society, considering economic, social and environmental factors. For those sponsors with lower priority projects that would prefer not to alter their projects to increase its economic or environmental benefits--making it more competitive--or to wait, up to $15 million is only available for loans made through the rural development programs, such as Rural Utility Service's water and waste water loans. These are subsidized loans, in which, depending upon the income of the community, the interest rate of the loan can be reduced. Mr. Skeen. What were the results of the Conservation Planning Pilot Projects conducted in six states? Response. The report on the Conservation Planning Pilot Projects conducted in six states--Georgia, Idaho, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, and Pennsylvania--is currently being finalized. Following are comments from the draft report planned for release in early May, 1997. Positive results included: Improved dialog and open discussion with farmers, ranchers, organizations, and local, state, and federal agencies to develop a process, criteria, and tools for resource management planning. Obtained local interagency support, financial resources, staff resources, and in some cases local cooperative agreements and/or operational procedures. Obtained feedback from individual farmers and ranchers that their needs were met and that they really valued their plans because the plans were developed specifically for their objectives and business needs. Strengthened the use of multi-disciplined and multi-organizational teams to provide comprehensive technical and planning assistance to meet producer's needs. Concerns included: The additional staff time required to coordinate, develop, and communicate a more comprehensive plan. The minimum needed for plan documentation support versus the minimum requirements necessary for ``the plan'' to meet the needs of the producer and NRCS standards. The confidentiality of the plan and the resource data used for the plan development. The assurance that by developing a comprehensive resource management plan that the producer would be in compliance with local, state, and federal laws and regulations by farmers, ranchers, and agricultural organizations. The ability of the technical service providers (NRCS, other agencies, and third party vendors) to provide adequate--quantity and quality--technical assistance. A copy of the final ``Conservation Planning Pilot Projects'' report will be provided to the Committee when it is completed. resource conservation and development Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 624 of last year's hearing record showing, for the Resource Conservation and Development program, RC&D, the amount of Federal and non-Federal funds devoted to cost sharing, and the amount of Federal and non-Federal funds provided for technical assistance, to reflect fiscal year 1996 actuals and fiscal year 1996 estimates. [The information follows:] RC&D FEDERAL AND NON-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Financial Technical Non-federal Year federal federal assistance ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1984............................................................ $9,445,821 $16,492,404 (\1\) 1985............................................................ 8,740,000 17,524,707 (\1\) 1986............................................................ 8,085,568 17,453,268 (\1\) 1987............................................................ 6,536,078 17,918,918 (\1\) 1988............................................................ 5,300,853 19,233,164 $65,975,000 1989............................................................ 4,620,811 20,559,546 (\1\) 1990............................................................ 4,200,061 23,145,385 108,073,000 1991............................................................ 3,947,428 24,339,421 160,465,000 1992............................................................ 2,234,289 31,383,945 131,132,000 1993............................................................ 2,048,298 30,795,181 75,102,000 1994............................................................ 2,401,326 31,472,850 71,936,000 1995............................................................ 1,402,613 30,799,303 80,387,000 1996............................................................ 262,571 29,169,517 89,230,000 1997 estimate................................................... 0 29,377,000 94,780,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (\1\) Information not available. Mr. Skeen. Also, update the table on the next page showing the number of RC&D projects that were initiated, completed, and those ongoing, to include fiscal year 1996 actuals and fiscal year 1997 estimates. [The information follows:] RC&D MEASURES ADOPTED, PLANNED, AND COMPLETED ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Year Adopted Planned Completed ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1984................................... 2,215 438 1,500 1985................................... 1,392 123 1,103 1986................................... 1,602 58 1,053 1987................................... 1,487 77 1,188 1988................................... 1,647 53 1,303 1989................................... 1,178 347 661 1990................................... 1,642 1,114 1,251 1991................................... 1,919 1,314 1,303 1992................................... 2,381 1,762 1,417 1993................................... 2,382 1,765 1,691 1994................................... 2,712 675 1,984 1995................................... 2,280 1,942 1,848 1996................................... 2,777 2,156 2,342 1997 estimate.......................... 2,750 2,100 2,300 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ resource conservation and development loans Mr. Skeen. From fiscal year 1965 through fiscal year 1994, the Department made 292 RC&D loans for a total of $68,484,993. In fiscal year 1995 there were 92 loans outstanding for a total of $5,498,000. What is the status of these loans. Response. In fiscal year 1996, there were 82 RC&D loans outstanding for a total of $4,316,000, with no delinquencies. Since the inception of the program in fiscal year 1965 through fiscal year 1995, a total of 292 RC&D loans have been made for a total of $29,848,709. non-federal watershed and rangeland coordinators Mr. Skeen. You are requesting an increase of $17,989,000 in the Resource Conservation and Development Program to fund 400 non-Federal watershed and rangeland coordinators in 25 states for high-priority watersheds. Provide a list of these states as well as the watersheds. Response. The states and the particular high priority watersheds that would benefit from the assignment of coordinators have not been selected at this time. The selections of locations would be made by the Deputy Chief for Programs and the state conservationists based upon recommendations from the state technical committees, local leaders and partners. The list would be developed once funding for the coordinators was allocated. Mr. Skeen. The justifications for this increase is to fund local non-Federal coordinators throughout the country including grazinglands assistance, the Bay-Delta region of California, and the salmon recovery sites located in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. How much of the requested increase will be devoted to each of these initiatives? Response. The amount of funding per state/watershed has not been determined. However, the Bay-Delta region of California and the salmon recovery sites located in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho represent good examples of the kinds of high priority watershed that would receive assistance with non-Federal coordinators. Mr. Skeen. How many non-Federal watershed and rangeland coordinators are currently being funded. Response. There are no non-federal watershed or rangeland coordinators currently being funded through NRCS. However, a number of USDA projects have coordinators funded through other sources of funding such as EPA 319 grants. Examples include Big Darby Watershed Project and Indian Creek projects in Ohio, and Huichica Creek in California. Mr. Skeen. Why do you propose to create a new program or new coordinators? Why not provide increased funding to existing entities to carryout work in specific areas of interest or identified projects? Response. This is not a new program. It includes a temporary, targeted grant to an existing non-profit organization formerly funded by Environmental Protection Agency--EPA: For the Sake of the Salmon. The remainder will be used in similar fashion to high priority watershed and rangeland, coordinating with the existing network of RC&D areas. The current RC&D council priorities and the RC&D program purpose are compatible with this work. RC&D councils currently include watershed enhancement, salmon habitat restoration, and grazinglands improvement in the resource management portions of their area plans. We in NRCS believe in and will continue to support a local planning process that uses the best-available science for solving problems. We believe that planning on a watershed basis is imperative and that a governmental presence to guide and assist with the coordination of these efforts is essential. At the local level, the keys to project success include: building citizens cooperation through education; getting stakeholders to participate in developing the project's goals; and tailoring the project's strategies, water quality monitoring and regulatory enforcement efforts to local conditions. Examples of the type of projects that NRCS hopes that these coordinators can help advance include: Huichica Creek and West Stanislaus County, California; Otter Lake, Illinois; Big Spring Basin, Iowa; Tar-Pamlico River Basin, North Carolina; Big Darby Creek, Ohio; Coos Bay-Coquille River, Oregon; Black Earth Creek, Wisconsin; Lake Champlain, Vermont; and, the Malpar's Borderland Group's work, Arizona. This effort is designed to provide technical assistance to existing entities to carry out planning on a watershed. The priority watersheds will be selected by state conservationists based upon recommendations from state technical committees, local leaders and partners. Mr. Skeen. As a result of the Secretary's decision in 1994 to modernize and reinvent the partnerships with conservation districts, USDA is signing new mutual agreements and companion cooperative working agreements to replace more than 50 year old basic and supplemental MOUs with conservation districts. Tell the Committee how these new agreements are different from the old ones. Provide some specific examples of how things have changed. Response. The Mutual Agreement--MA--establishes the framework for cooperation among the US Department of Agriculture, states, tribes and conservation districts. This is a one page document that commits Federal, State/Tribal governments and local Conservation Districts to cooperate together in implementing their respective long range natural resource conservation programs; the MA is the umbrella for all USDA agencies and opens up the opportunity for development of other agreements with new partners. For the first time in the history of this partnership of over 50 years, State Governors and Tribal Council/ Governments--or their designee--are signatories on the MA. The MA provides an opportunity for Indian Tribes to establish tribal conservation districts. To date 95% of the State Governors have signed the MA and 15 Tribal Conservation Districts have been established. The Cooperative Working Agreement--CWA--defines the relationship between NRCS, the conservation districts or tribes and state conservation agencies; and provides the opportunity for each individual state to establish and define its own natural resource concerns and action plan. The CWA can be used as a model for the development of other agreements with new and other potential partners. The Supplemental Memorandum of Understanding identified only what Natural Resources Conservation Service and Conservation Districts would do excluding opportunities with other conservation agencies and organizations. This unique partnership between the 3,000 Conservation Districts, United States Department of Agriculture and the Natural Resources Conservation Services formed by the MA and CWA will continue to provide the strong link and guiding force into the next millennium. federal and non-federal sources of reimbursements Mr. Skeen. Provide a detailed breakout of the other Federal and non-Federal sources of obligations for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998. [The information follows:] OTHER FEDERAL AND NON FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1996 1997 1998 Actual Estimated Estimated ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Other Federal Sources............ 1,947,982 3,733,000 3,733,000 State and local Government....... 13,539,595 19,109,500 19,109,000 Private.......................... 43,004 57,500 57,500 -------------------------------------- Total...................... 15,530,581 22,900,000 22,900,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Skeen. Why do you expect these reimbursements to almost double in fiscal year 1997? Response. I expect these reimbursements to almost double in fiscal year 1997 for financial assistance reimbursements from state and local governments; due to anticipated emergency watershed protection programs activities, as well as the other ongoing Watershed and Flood Prevention program activities. number of outstanding borrowers Mr. Skeen. You do not show any improvement in the number of outstanding borrowers over the three year period of 1996, 1997, and 1998. Is there a reason for this? Response. These were estimates only. We hope to see a decrease in the number of outstanding borrowers. resource conservation and development loans Mr. Skeen. How many RC&D loans were made under the Bankhead-Jones Tenant Act to local organizations for financing the local share of the cost of installing approved RC&D projects in fiscal years 1995 and 1996? Are there any requests for these loans in fiscal year 1997? Response. Even though these loans are available to RC&D sponsors, there have been no loan applications in fiscal years 1995 and 1996, and we are unaware of any applications for fiscal year 1997. management recommendations for rc&d Mr. Skeen. Provide a list of the management recommendations that were identified in fiscal year 1995 and briefly describe what you are doing to respond to these recommendations. Response. Following is a copy of the USDA RC&D Working Group Annual Report on the Resource Conservation and Development Program. [Pages 594 - 605--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] use of pelleted newspaper on demonstration projects Mr. Skeen. A demonstration project in the Big Country RC&D in Texas pelleted newspaper and applied the pellets to cropland at a rate of five tons per acre to achieve a 30 percent ground cover on five acre plots. Analysis showed that soil loss from sediment was reduced 41 percent, surface runoff reduced 20 percent, and wind erosion reduced 50 percent at the same time cotton yield increased 32 percent. Is this technology being expanded to other areas of the country? Response. Yes, this technology is being expanded to other parts of the country. The Big Country RC&D Council in partnership with NRCS and the Agricultural Research Service--ARS--has made information available to other RC&Ds and organizations throughout the country. Dr. James H. Edwards, Jr., ARS-Soils Dynamic Research, has presented results of this project at the Biocycle South Central Meeting, Austin, TX; the American Society of Agronomy Meeting, Cincinnati, OH; the Beltway Cotton Conference, San Diego, CA; the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists Meeting, Nashville, TN; and the Workshop on Sustainable By- Product Management, Twin Falls, ID. Dr. Edwards will make a presentation at the National Association of RC&D Councils Conference in June 1997 in St. Paul, MN. Two other RC&D areas have pilot projects using the pelleted newspaper: North Plains RC&D, Devils Lake, ND, on wheat and Prairie Rivers RC&D, Henry, II, on corn and soybeans. This demonstration project was selected as a finalist in the 1997 Governors Awards for Environmental Excellence. water quality initiatives Mr. Skeen. Please update the table appears on page 625 of last year's hearing record, showing the funding level of water quality incentives, to reflect fiscal year 1996 actuals and fiscal year 1998 estimates. [The information follows:] FUNDING FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL WATER QUALITY INITIATIVE FISCAL YEARS 1990-98 [In millions of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Technology development.......................... 7.5 7.6 7.9 8.2 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 Regional projects............................... 7.9 8.3 9.5 9.3 11.6 11.6 12.0 12.0 Hydrologic areas................................ 15.7 16.3 12.3 12.6 10.5 11.2 5.0 5.0 Demonstration areas............................. 4.4 4.6 4.6 3.6 3.7 4.0 2.0 2.0 Ongoing projects................................ 8.6 8.8 11.7 13.3 13.0 12.0 20.1 20.1 Special projects................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .4 .6 .0 .0 --------------------------------------------------------------- Total..................................... 44.1 45.6 46.0 47.0 47.0 47.2 46.9 46.9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- regional project allocations Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 626 of last year's hearing record, showing the regional project allocations, to include actuals and fiscal year 1198 estimates. [The information follows:] REGIONAL PROJECT ALLOCATIONS, FISCAL YEARS 1993-98 [Dollars in millions] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Allocations (1,000s) Staff Years Regional Projects ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Bay.................. $4.5 $4.7 $4.7 $5.0 $5.0 64 64 64 67 64 Gulf of Mexico.................. .4 .4 .3 .4 .4 8 8 8 8 8 Land and Water 201.............. .8 .8 .7 .7 0 18 18 18 18 0 Great Lakes..................... 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 16 16 16 16 15 Other Regional Authorities...... 3.7 2.9 4.3 5.0 5.3 54 54 42 50 50 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- status of hydrologic unit areas Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the hydrologic unit areas started in fiscal year 1990 and scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1998 and the 35 unit areas started in fiscal year 1991 and scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1999? Response. These sixty-six active Projects continue to make good progress and are on track to complete their intended goals by the end of 1999. In fiscal year 1997, line-item funding to these Projects was reduced by roughly 50 percent, but with the difference in funding retained by the state for broader application of water quality work. This is consistent with the original goals established for these Projects which included additional technical assistance and outreach to neighboring areas with similar water quality concerns. Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 626 of last year's hearing record showing the funding levels provided to these areas to include fiscal year 1998. [The information follows:] HYDROLOGIC UNIT AREAS [Funding in millions] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 19971 19981 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Unit Areas........................... 15.7 16.3 12.3 12.6 10.5 11.2 5.0 5.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Estimates water quality demonstration projects Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the seven water quality demonstration projects started in fiscal year 1990 that are scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1998, and the eight projects started in fiscal year 1991 that requested extensions to fiscal year 1999? Response. These fifteen active Demonstration Projects are on track to complete their intended goals by the end of 1999. As with the Hydrologic Unit Area Projects, line-item funding to these Projects was reduced by approximately 50 percent in fiscal year 1997, but with the difference in funding retained by the state for broader water quality work of a related nature. One of the original goals of these Demonstration Projects was to strengthen interagency partnerships and increase local involvement in the application of innovative nonpoint source improvements. As work has proceeded in these areas, additional interest has been generated and the need for a broadening of our technical assistance to adjacent and neighboring areas has become necessary. Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 626 of last year's hearing record showing the funding levels provided to these projects to include fiscal year 1998. [The information follows:] DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS [Funding in millions] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 19971 19981 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Demonstration Projects.......................................... 4.4 4.6 4.6 3.6 3.7 4.0 2.0 2.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Estimates Mr. Skeen. The Physical Impacts Assessment final report being conducted to evaluate the 16 water quality projects was scheduled for release by the end of fiscal year 1996. What is the assessment? Response. The final report ``Assessment of Progress of Selected Water Quality Projects of USDA and State Cooperators'' was published in July 1996. Producer adoption of improved practices in this set of 16 projects led to reductions in average annual applications of nitrogen and phosphorus of 54 pounds per acre and 32 pounds per acre, respectively. Improvements in pesticide management included shifts to chemicals of lower leaching potential, more Integrated Pest Management practices, and some reductions in chemical use. Competent use of simulation modeling to project long-term change in leaching and runoff of nutrients to water only occurred in six projects. Water quality monitoring documented water quality improvements for individual practices and instrumented sites but not at the level of any one project or watershed. Mr. Skeen. What are the findings of the survey conducted by the University of Wisconsin to determine the adoption rates of water quality practices among USDA program participants and non-program participants? Response. The final report is expected to be available in September 1997. Mr. Skeen. Last year you provided the Committee with a brief description of each of the nine regional projects that are currently underway including how much has been spent on each project. Would you please update these projects for us. Response. Only seven of these nine regional Projects continue to be funded as they have been in the past. These seven include the Water Quality Hydrologic Unit Areas and the Demonstration Projects that I have already addressed. Also included are the Chesapeake Bay Program, National Estuary Program, Great Lakes Program, Lake Champlain Project, and the Gulf of Mexico Program. The functions of the Colorado River Salinity Control Program were transferred to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program by the 1996 Farm Bill. The Land and Water 201 Program, previously carried out in coordination with the Tennessee Valley Authority, has also been terminated but with the technical assistance dollars formerly provided to this Program now directed tothe same general region in support of the Southeast Regional Agriculture and Natural Resources Forum. [The information follows:] water quality hydrologic unit area projects The Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA) Projects include 74 interagency water quality improvement projects initiated in 1990 as part of the USDA Water Quality Initiative. Projects were located in every state except Nevada and Alaska. The objective of these broad-based projects is to accelerate technical and financial assistance, and information and education activities to local and State Priority watersheds. NRCS is responsible for providing technical assistance directly to landusers in these priority watersheds. In 1997, $5 million, representing approximately 85 staff years will be dedicated to these areas. water quality demonstration projects A total of 16 Water Quality Demonstration Projects were initiated as part of the President's Water Quality Initiative in 1990. Demonstration Projects are designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of conservation practices in treating specific nonpoint source pollution problems and to promote the use of these practices in other areas. These projects are implemented under the joint leadership of NRCS, FSA, and CSREES. Projects are evaluated annually to determine the effects that selected practices have on the water quality problem, the extent that improved practices are adopted, and the cost of practice installation. NRCS is responsible for providing direct technical assistance to landusers in the application of conservation and best management practices. In 1997, $2 million, representing approximately 34 staff years will be dedicated to these projects. chesapeake bay program The Chesapeake Bay Agreement, signed in 1983 as a cooperative agreement between the Bay States and the Federal Government, assigns NRCS responsibility for providing accelerated technical assistance in the Chesapeake Bay drainage area for the restoration and protection of the Bay's water quality and living resources. In 1997, $4.75 million, representing approximately 80 staff years will be dedicated to the Bay Program. national estuary program In coordination with EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--NOAA, NRCS has agreed to provide additional funding for accelerated technical assistance in selected watersheds. In 1997, $4 million, representing approximately 67 staff years will be dedicated to providing additional technical assistance to landusers in the watersheds of these estuaries of national importance. great lakes program In support of the U.S. initiative to the Great Lakes Program, NRCS has responsibility for providing on-farm technical assistance to farmers in the application of erosion control practices to reduce erosion and delivery of associated nutrients and pesticides within the basin. In 1997, $1.3 million, representing approximately 21 staff years will be dedicated to additional technical assistance to this program. lake champlain project The Lake Champlain Basin is considered a high priority area for addressing water quality problems caused by agricultural nonpoint source pollution. The Lake Champlain Special Designation Act of 1990 provides for the development and implementation of a pollution prevention, control and restoration plan for the Basin. NRCS is responsible within this area for the delivery of accelerated technical assistance to agricultural producers to help in the control of erosion and management of animal waste associated with the significant dairy industry of the area. In 1997, $550,000 was provided to NRCS in New York and Vermont for additional technical assistance to this project. southeast regional agriculture and natural resources forum This initiative, formally funded as the Land and Water 201 Program, is directed at providing additional technical assistance to seven states including Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The objective of this initiative is to reduce erosion and sedimentation within the basin and to deal aggressively with the water quality problems associated with a rapidly expanding poultry industry and other related animal waste problems. In 1997, $710,000 representing approximately 12 staff years will be provided for this accelerated technical assistance to the region. gulf of mexico program NRCS is committed within the framework of the Federal Interagency Agreement coordinating nonpoint source pollution control activities for the Gulf of Mexico, to target additional technical assistance funds in the amount of $325,000 to these activities. These funds went to support approximately 6 additional staff years to the region. international activities Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 629 of last year's hearing record, showing the total cost to NRCS to provide this assistance and the amount reimbursed by other agencies or organizations to include fiscal year 1996. [The information follows:] INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COST OF INTERNATIONAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year Total cost Reimbursed ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1991.......................................... 883 783 1992.......................................... 970 870 1993.......................................... 1,144 1,034 1994.......................................... 1,018 875 1995.......................................... 565 415 1996.......................................... 560 280 ------------------------- Totals.................................. 5,140 3,257 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ water quality monitoring techniques Mr. Skeen. You use ARS simulation models and water quality monitoring techniques to estimate benefits resulting from applied practices. Tell the committee what some of these benefits are? Response. Due to the long and highly variable periods of time for movement of agrichemicals down through the soil profile to water or across the land's surface to surface water and to the known and unknown effects of the physical environment on these agrichemicals, project managers and scientists often have great difficulty in quantifying the change in water quality of applied practices. ARS physical process simulation models, although complex, simplify reality and allow knowledgeable scientists to approximate the degree to which changes in crop rotations, tillages, land treatment practices, and changes in management may reduce average annual loadings of sediment, nutrients, and pesticides to nearby surface waters over a long period of time. physical impact assessment of water quality Mr. Skeen. What were the results of the eight hydrologic unit areas and eight demonstration projects that were completed in 1996? Response. A physical impact assessment of eight hydrologic unit areas and eight demonstration projects was completed in 1996 and some projects were already able to document water quality improvements due to practices installed. The 16 projects, however, were not closed and will continue their work through FY 1999. We will provide you with the results when they are completed. small watershed loans Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 629 of last year's hearing record showing the loan authority level and the number of loans made to include fiscal year 1996. [The information follows:] LOANS FOR SMALL WATERSHED PROGRAM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Loan No. of Dollar Fiscal year authority loans amount ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1987................................. 7,900,000 1 $148,200 1988................................. 7,900,000 0 0 1989................................. 7,900,000 0 0 1990................................. 4,000,000 2 2,649,000 1991................................. 4,000,000 0 0 1992................................. 4,000,000 2 502,000 1993................................. 4,000,000 0 0 1994................................. 4,000,000 0 0 1995................................. 0 0 0 1996................................. 0 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Skeen. What is the status of these loans? Response. The status of the loans from 1987 to 1996 are all current except three. In total, there are 245 loans outstanding, totaling $45.8 million, with three loans in a deliquent status. public affairs funding level Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on page 629 of last year's hearing record showing the funding and staffing levels for the Public Affairs Office, to include fiscal year 1998. [The information follows:] PUBLIC AFFAIRS FUNDING AND STAFFING LEVELS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Funding ($000).......................... 2,084 2,436 1,875 1,416 1,238 938 961 838 FTE..................................... 45 45 42 29 21 13 13 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Skeen. Provide a five year table that shows how much is spent annually on the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative including estimates for fiscal year 1998. [The information follows:] Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative Five Year Annual Spending [In thousands of dollars] Fiscal year Annual spending 1994.......................................................... 180 1995.......................................................... 250 1996.......................................................... 5,000 1997.......................................................... 10,000 1998.......................................................... 10,000 Mr. Skeen. Provide a table that shows the number of grazing land specialists at the agency for each year since 1990. [The information follows:] NRCS GRAZING LAND SPECIALISTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number......................... 248 240 238 234 212 208 288 330 400 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- training rangeland conservationists Mr. Skeen. You are requesting an increase of $4,056,000 for training for rangeland conservation. You state this funding may be supplemented by up to $944,000. Where will this additional funding come from? Response. The additional $944,000 that may be utilized to implement the grazing lands training program will come from a variety of sources. Conservation Technical Assistance funds can be used to support the training if necessary. Additionally, funding may be leveraged with those from federal, state and local partners to provide training to a wider audience that would include representatives from federal, state, and local governments, industry, private livestock producers and the public. Participating partners may include the member organizations of the National Grazing Lands ConservationInitiative Steering Committee, Conservation Districts, Universities, and others. Mr. Skeen. How many staff will be trained with this funding? Response. Approximately 1,000 employees will benefit from this training. A majority of the training will be developed to include a variety of partners, including university, extension, industry, private grazing land owners and managers, as well as the public that benefit from properly managed grazing lands. grazing lands assistance Mr. Skeen. Congress has provided increases over the past two years specifically for grazing lands work. This is in addition to the amount the agency was already spending on this type work. You state in the budget justifications that less than two percent of the workforce is comprised of grazing land specialists.You also state that while 80 percent of the 1.4 million grazing land operators have serious range problems, you were only able to provide less than one-third of one percent of them with planning assistance in 1994 and 1995. With the increases provided in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, what are the levels of assistance being provided? Response. In 1994 and 1995, NRCS provided technical assistance, on an average annual basis, to more than 3,700 owners and managers of private grazing lands. In 1996, we assisted an additional 3,000 landusers for a total of more than 6,700. In 1997, we expect that as many as 8,200 owners and managers of private grazing lands will be receiving technical assistance on a voluntary basis from qualified grazing land specialists. This increase in landusers assisted is a result of the addition of 122 grazing land specialists directly related to the increased funding for the grazing lands conservation initiative. It is anticipated that the productivity of these individuals as well as others will continue to increase as they receive additional training and gain experience. grazing land technology institute Mr. Skeen. Where is the Grazing Land Technology Institute located and how is it funded? Response. The National Grazing Land Technology Institute is located at the NRCS Region Office in Fort Worth, Texas. Funding is provided by NRCS. Mr. Skeen. In fiscal year 1996, more than 200 employees enrolled in courses in grazing science, livestock management, and related sciences. Where are these courses taught? [The information follows:] grazing land related courses Pasture Ecology, North Carolina State, Raleigh, NC. Plant Herbivore Interaction, Utah State University, Logan, UT. Working Effectively with Livestock Producers, TCU, Ft. Worth, TX. Rangeland Ecology, Texas A&M College Station, TX. Prescribed Burning, UT, TX, OK. grazing lands allocations Mr. Skeen. You state in the budget justifications that in the 1980's and early 1990's, NRCS provided assistance on an average of about 32 million acres of grazing lands annually. In 1996, this increased to about 35 million acres. How much did you spend prior to 1996 and how much did you spend in 1996? Response. In 1995, NRCS allocated approximately $12.8 million representing a total of 208 FTE's to deliver technical assistance to owners and managers of private grazing lands. In 1996, NRCS allocated approximately $19.5 million representing a total of 288 FTE's to deliver technical assistance to owners and managers of private grazing lands. Much of the assistance provided in the late 1980's and early 1990's was a direct result of planning efforts of the agency on grazing lands which occurred prior to 1986. Mr. Skeen. What are your estimates for 1997? Response. In 1997, NRCS allocated approximately $23.1 million representing a total of 330 FTE's to deliver technical assistance to owners and managers of private grazing lands. nrcs budget request Mr. Skeen. Provide the Committee with a breakout of your budget request to the Secretary, the Secretary's request to OMB, and the OMB allowance. [The information follows:] [Page 613--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] fip and sip appropriation Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 631 and 632 of last year's hearing record, showing a comparison of FIP and SIP appropriations, to include fiscal year 1997 actuals and the fiscal year 1998 budget request. [The information follows:] COMPARISON OF FIP AND SIP APPROPRIATIONS [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year FIP SIP ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1993.......................................... 12,446 17,800 1994.......................................... 12,820 17,932 1995.......................................... 6,625 18,283 1996.......................................... 6,325 4,496 1997.......................................... 6,325 4,500 1998 estimate................................. 6,325 10,230 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ forestry incentives program Mr. Skeen. Did the 1996 farm bill make any changes to FIP other than extend the program to 2002? Response. The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Subtitle G--Forestry, Sec. 373 amended the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 by striking ``annually'' and inserting ``for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2002''. Mr. Skeen. When will fiscal year 1996 program summary data be available? Response. The final fiscal year 1996 Forestry Incentives Program data will be available by July 1, 1997. The final draft data currently being reviewed indicates a total of $6,622,933.00 was paid in cost- shares for fiscal year 1996. Final draft data also indicates 3,114 participants received cost-shares on 126,096 acres of tree planting, timberstand improvement and natural regeneration practices. agricultural resource conservation demonstration program Mr. Skeen. Please update the table that appears on pages 632 of last year's hearing record showing the history of the agricultural resource conservation demonstration program to incorporate the new farmland protection program. Response. The statutory authority for the Agricultural Resource Conservation Demonstration Program expired September 1996. Following is a history table for the Agricultural Resource Conservation Demonstration Program and a table with information on the new Farmland Protection Program. HISTORY OF THE AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Loan level Number Fiscal year guaranteed of loans ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1992.......................................... $10,000,000 1 1993.......................................... 6,875,000 1 1994.......................................... 6,673,000 1 1995.......................................... (\1\) ........ 1996.......................................... (1, 2) ........ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ No appropriation. \2\ Program expired 12/31/95. HISTORY OF THE FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obligated funds Fiscal year for easement Technical Total acquisition assistance ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1996................................................... $14,325,000 $575,000 $14,900,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- farmland protection program Mr. Skeen. To be eligible for the program land must be subject to a pending offer from a State or local government. Are private landowner offers precluded from the program? Response. The Farmland Protection Program provides funds to State, Tribe, or local government entities and establishes partnerships with them. Proposals are to be received from those qualified government entities with pending offers, instead of the private landowners. Private landowners can submit their offers directly to their State, Tribe, or local programs. Mr. Skeen. Funding for the program is not to exceed $35 million. How much has been spent to date? Response. Fifteen million dollars have been spent in fiscal year 1996, including $14.5 million obligated to 37 States and local government entities and $0.5 million reimbursable technical assistance funds to the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Mr. Skeen. The farm bill provided for a total of $35 million over seven years. Why do you propose to spend the entire amount in the first two years? Response. Using purchase of development rights to protect valuable farmlands for their environmental, social, and economic benefits has been existing since 1976. It was estimated that, as of April 1996, State and local government entities spent approximately $1 billion in acquiring conservation easements for protecting farmlands from conversion to nonagricultural uses. Experience of the first year in implementing the Farmland Protection Program indicated that the demands for Federal funds from the State and local government entities were 10 times greater than the available funds in fiscal year 1996. Federal funds of $35 million can hardly meet the needs and demands of the State and local programs. As urban development pressure continues, it will be less costly to acquire conservation easements at the earliest possible time. We also believe that the sooner the farmlands are protected, the sooner the environmental, social, and economic benefits can be materialized. Mr. Skeen. Provide a list of the states where the conservation farm option program will be limited to. Response. The conservation farm option program will be available in all states. However, it is unlikely that contracts will be executed in every state. rural abandoned mine program Mr. Skeen. Update the table that appears on page 634 of last year's hearing record, showing how much has been transferred by the Department of Interior from the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Trust Fund for the Rural Abandoned Mine program, to include estimates for fiscal year 1997. [The information follows:] ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION TRUST FUND--RAMP STATUS [In millions] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total collections in the trust fund................................ 260.0 254.6 255.4 238.2 244.2 Total available for transfer....................................... 26.0 25.5 25.5 23.8 24.4 Total transferred to NRCS.......................................... 0.0 0.0 7.9 13.2 13.3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- earth team volunteers Mr. Skeen. How many Earth Team volunteers worked for the agency in fiscal year 1996? Give us some examples of accomplishments that were achieved using these volunteers for the record. Response. During fiscal year 1996, 14,748 Earth Team Volunteers provided the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service with 530,854 hours of service. Earth Team Volunteers worked closely with field professionals in applying conservation by assisting with the layout, survey and design of conservation practices. Volunteers provided a full range of office support. They answered phones, typed letters, made copies and sent faxes, thus freeing up technical staff to assist farmers and ranchers in the field. Volunteers also worked with schools, community groups, and individuals; planted trees, cleaned up after floods and other natural disasters; and worked side-by-side with NRCS employees. For example, during National Volunteer Week, nearly 800 Earth Team Volunteers from across the country provided conservation education to 140,000 students. In Indiana, a cadre of three handicapped Earth Team Volunteers assisted not only NRCS, but also Farm Service Agency and Rural Development employees. These volunteers stuffed 4,000 envelopes for a mailing from the Farm Service Agency Office. usda service centers Mr. Skeen. What changes to the original USDA Service Center plan have been made as a result of the 37 focus groups that were conducted from December 1995 through February 1996? Response. Results from the 37 focus groups have not changed the original USDA Service Center Plan streamlining and reorganization activities. However, these results have made a significant impact on service center customer service by ensuring all employees who work directly with the public are familiar with the customer service standards, and are able to provide a responsive feedback, and common complaint system to customers. Customer service standards include fewer, simpler regulations and forms; local, accessible, knowledgeable staff; flexible programs, so local staff have authority to make decisions based on local conditions and common sense; timely programs, information, and service; follow through and privacy. Also, the results from the 37 focus groups will be incorporated into the Business Process Reengineering efforts and other processes. Mr. Skeen. What impact, if any, has the new farm bill had on the field office consolidation efforts? Response. The new farm bill has not impacted the field office consolidation efforts. status of osage county pilot Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the Osage County Pilot? Response. Osage County continues to play an important role in defining common geospatial information system--GIS--technology within the USDA service center environment. The office provides guidance in identifying operational business driven functional requirements including user interface, data management--spatial and attribute, data capture, data manipulation, data analysis, and data display/product generation. No money was appropriated for pilot office activities in Osage County in fiscal year 1997. However, support continues for existing activities within the Osage County field office. These activities include: GIS based acreage reporting application; GIS conservation planning application; GIS support for CRP eligibility determinations; and 35mm aerial compliance slide application. Osage County staff are actively participating in the Service Center Business Process Reengineering--BPR--effort for GIS services. Office staff are assisting in identifying current field applications and how these are currently accomplished without using GIS. They then define how these applications would be accomplished using GIS technologies. Time studies are underway to estimate the costs and benefits of using GIS. From this effort, specific field office applications will be defined that have high potential for reengineering utilizing geospatial processing technologies. Osage County has also been established as the first multi-agency-- Federal-State-Local--digitizing center in Kansas. The primary purpose of the digitizing centers is to digitize all the land units--i.e., farm/field boundaries--for Kansas. number of field service centers Mr. Skeen. The Farm Service Agency is planning to close and consolidate the number of its field offices to 2,500 and is looking at the possibility of reducing the number even further. Your agency is still operating in about 3,000 field offices. What are your plans to close and consolidate field offices and reduce this number? Response. NRCS is consolidating 686 field offices in order to reach 2,469 service centers by end of fiscal year 1997. Mr. Skeen. What are the costs associated with relocating NRCS operations to the Service Centers? Provide a breakout of these costs by fiscal year. Response. NRCS has not tracked the costs for USDA Service Center implementation agency-wide. However, the database on service centers will be enhanced to capture this information. Mr. Skeen. Provide a five year table, including fiscal year 1997, that shows the number of headquarters and state office staff levels. [The information follows:] STAFFING LEVELS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NHQ................................................................ 334 392 502 536 530 SO................................................................. 1,880 1,982 2,408 2,873 2,983 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- geographic information system pilot offices Mr. Skeen. What are the results of pilot projects conducted at the county level to validate the practicality and assess the benefits of using computerized databases? Response. We interpreted this question to mean the geographic information system--GIS--pilot offices in three county office locations. These pilots are located in Rockingham County, Virginia; Osage County, Kansas; and Morgan County, Colorado. All three have been providing new services and products to our customers using digital orthophotography, digital soil surveys and GIS software. The new computerized databases and GIS software are used to carry out business practices such as managing land unit boundaries and related land information, maintaining customer records, administering conservation programs, providing conservation technical assistance, and producing high quality and more accurate map products and information at the local office. All three offices have proven that the use of GIS technology improves business efficiencies at the field service centers and increases customer satisfaction as well. The NRCS and Farm Service Agency are presently evaluating the costs and benefits of GIS technology in more detail as part of a Business Process Reengineering-- BPR--study. The team is due to have a complete report to the Department by the end of this fiscal year. geographic information system 1997 earmark Mr. Skeen. Provide a specific breakout of how the $10 million provided in the fiscal year 1997 appropriations is being used. Response. This funding is being used to procure orthophotography and to digitize soil surveys needed to implement GIS capability at the USDA Field Service Centers. Approximately $2.5 million was matched with an equivalent amount each from USGS, FSA, and State Agencies to procure $10,000,000 worth of orthophotography--about 9800 quads--for the USDA Field Service Center's GIS systems and for use in digitizing soil surveys. The remaining $7.5 million was distributed to the 6 NRCS regions for use in digitizing soil surveys. evaluation of conservation operations and watersheds programs Mr. Skeen. During fiscal year 1994, NRCS conducted an evaluation of conservation operations and watersheds programs to account for use of time, appropriations, and costs with respect to ecosystem based products. You anticipated having initial reports from these evaluations in March 1995 with final results in March 1996. At least year's hearing you were in the process of finalizing analysis and preparing reports from the evaluation. What were the results? Response. The results and analysis from the evaluation study have been completed. Publication of the report has been delayed however due to three high priority agency initiatives: the preparation of the GPRA National Strategic Plan; the development of the Geography of Hope--a report on America's Private Land, and; the analysis of the impacts of the 1996 farm bill on NRCS workload and services. The results and analysis from the evaluation study provided significant input to the preparation of these documents. Baseline data, workload estimates, and development of the agency's strategic initiatives were largely provided through the data from the evaluation study. The agency still plans to complete a report for the evaluation study in the fall of 1997. Notable results from the analysis already reveal that environmental and ecological benefits are greater on acreage's where NRCS has provided technical assistance than on acreage's where no technical assistance has been provided. information and educational activities Mr. Skeen. In fiscal year 1996, $300,000 was transferred to the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service from the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program for information and educational activities. Now that CRBSCP is part of EQIP are any funds being transferred in fiscal year 1997 for these activities? Response. Under direction of the State Conservationist with advice from the State Technical Committee, and concurrence from the Farm Service Agency State Committee, funds may be identified for information and educational activities in FY 1997 for salinity projects that receive EQIP funding. As of this time, no funds have been transferred for these activities. technical assistance for ongoing activities of the crbsc and gpc programs Mr. Skeen. In the testimony you state that during 1998, the NRCS will continue to provide technical assistance on prior year projects as needed for CRBSC programs and ongoing activities of the GPC program. Please elaborate on this in further detail including funding amounts and where this funding comes from--whether its discretionary or CCC funding. Response. As of September 30, 1996, there were in excess of 7,000 active contracts between the CRBSC and GPC programs that will require technical assistance for implementation and completion. Technical assistance funding for these contracts will be provided through the discretionary Conservation Technical Assistance program activity that is funded with discretionary appropriations. Currently, no decisions on actual funding amounts have been made for fiscal year 1997. criteria for environmental quality incentives program allocations Mr. Skeen. What criteria was used to decided EQIP allocations? Provide a list of the criteria used for the record. Response. Upon receipt of the EQIP funding proposals from the state conservationists, we asked for recommendations from the regional conservationist to determine if the proposals were consistent with the regional strategic plans. A national-level interagency team was also used to review and rate the proposals to: determine which proposals meet the basic program guidance; and determine which proposals are likely to be most effective at meeting the program goals and maximize the environmental benefits per dollar spent. A natural resource-based allocation formula was developed so the allocation of funds could be based on conservation needs--a copy of which is provided. Because EQIP will address a wide range or natural resource conditions, such as soil erosion and deposition, water quality and quantity, wildlife habitat, wetlands, grazing lands, and other concerns, the formula contains 26 elements that relate to these various natural resource concerns. EQIP must also target 50 percent of the funds to natural resource concerns related to livestock production, so several of the formula elements relate to livestock concerns. This formula is used to determine the basic percentage of the EQIP funds that each state should receive. The basic amount determined by the formula was adjusted so that no state would receive a dramatic increase or decrease in conservation assistance funds which might negatively impact their ability to manage or deliver the program. Regional conservationists' and interagency team recommendations were also used to determine how a portion of the funds should be allocated. Some funding decisions based on their recommendations includes the following: Establish an incentive reward for states that have developed their program in a way that will result in maximizing the environmental benefits per dollar spent in an exceptional manner. About $10 million is being used for these rewards. The interagency team ratings of the proposals is being used to determine which states receive an incentive reward. This type bonus will, naturally, be to the benefit of farmers and ranchers, but will at the same time encourage our partners and employees to excel in their assessments, stakeholder outreach, and planning efforts. Provide a minimum of 65 percent of the funds to priority areas and up to 35 percent to the statewide concerns. This division will ensure that natural resource needs outside priority areas will not be ignored or allowed to worsen. Authorize state conservationists to make decisions as to how the moneys allocated to their states will be distributed to their priority areas and statewide concerns, in consultation with the state technical committee and with the concurrence of the FSA state committee. These decisions include the amount of funds to be spent on financial assistance and educational assistance in priority areas and statewide concerns which meet program guidance. A modest reserve has been established to be used to meet special environmental needs that are currently unforeseen. Other aspects of the allocation process are to enable the Department to address the special environmental needs of Indian tribes, Alaskan natives, and others who have not historically participated in the former conservation program, $5 million will be used to fund priority areas that meet the program guidance on eligible tribal lands. We are initiating the determination of funds to be allocated to the states. The amounts are approved by me with the concurrence of FSA Administrator Buntrock. The amounts are close to the final amounts for the financial and educational assistance. They do not include the technical assistance funds which will be distributed with the final allocations. The final amounts will be determined after we process the final needs as presented by the states. This information is being distributed now so that state conservationists can make the funding decisions as indicated above. The state funding decisions will be shared with the national office about April 7th. We will review them to ensure that on the national level 50 percent of the funds are targeted to natural resource concerns related to livestock production. This process was done in this fashion in order to expeditiously move the process along. Future funding allocations will be done differently as the locally-led conservation priority area needs assessment and recommendations process matures. The final allocations will then be made when the final rule is published. [The information follows:] [Page 620--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] criteria for state priority areas Mr. Skeen. For the record provide a detailed list of the criteria used to determine State priority areas and the objective rating systems based on 26 national environmental factors used to determine State funding allocations. Response. The proposed regulations specified in 7 CFR part 1466 state that State conservationists will make decisions to approve priority areas based on proposals, in consultation with a State technical committee and the recommendations of a local work group. The rule proposed that they shall consider the following factors in determining the significance of the natural resource concerns identified in the proposal: soil types and characteristics; terrain and topographic features; climatic conditions; flood hazards; saline characteristics of land or water; environmental sensitivity of the land, such as wetlands and riparian areas; quality and intended use of the land; quality and intended use of the receiving waters, including fishery habitat and source of drinking water supply; wildlife and wildlife habitat quality and quantity; other natural hazards or other factors, including the existing agricultural management practices of the producers in the area or pest problems which may threaten natural resources; and the conservation practices that best address these factors. The regulation also provides that NRCS will consider the following factors in its allocation of funds: condition of the natural resources; significance of the natural resource concerns; improvements that NRCS expects will result from implementation of the conservation plan; expected number of producers who will participate and the time and financial commitment that the producers will provide; estimated program cost to provide technical, educational, and financial assistance; level of coordination with and support from existing State and local programs, including private sources, and both direct and in- kind contributions; ways the program can best assist produces in complying with Federal, state, and tribal environmental laws, quantified where possible; and other factors that will result in maximization of environmental benefits. We provided further guidance to State conservationists for fiscal year 1997. The guidelines provide that a priority area should be of a size where significant progress toward meeting the natural resource goals can be expected within a reasonable timeframe. The natural resource goals must be clearly articulated. The State Conservationists should determine an amount of funding that can reasonably be expended in a 3- to 5-year timeframe when determining priority area goals, objectives, scope, and size. The extent to which EQIP funding assists participants to address Federal, Tribal, State, and local environmental laws should be a factor in setting priorities. Locations where EQIP will be delivered must clearly be identified as having serious threats to soil, water, and related natural resources or have significant natural resource and environmental concerns. The agricultural contribution to these threats or concerns must be evident, as well as a current unmet need for conservation of the natural resources. The solutions to the threats or concerns should be currently acceptable and feasible. The expected producer participation rates should be high enough to significantly address the identified natural resource concerns within the 3 to 5-year timeframe. Outreach opportunities to limited resource producers, small-scale producers, minorities, Indian Tribes, Alaska natives, Pacific Islanders, and other producers with historically low participation rates must be identified and appropriate actions planned and carried out to address those needs. Educational needs of producers who are expected to participate in the program,especially limited resource producers and others with historically low participation rates, must be identified and appropriate actions planned and carried out to address those needs. Refer to the EQIP Allocation Formula Elements table to see the 26 national environmental factors used to determine State funding allocations. breakout of 1996 eqip allocation Mr. Skeen. Provide a breakout of how the $130 million was allocated in 1996. [The information follows:] [Page 622--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] administration of eqip Mr. Skeen. Except for the 50 percent livestock requirement, how is EQIP administered any differently from administering the four programs separately? Response. There are several ways that administration of EQIP differs from that of the Agriculture Conservation Program, Great Plains Conservation Program, Agriculture Water Quality Incentive Program, and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. First, EQIP will be delivered primarily in priority areas which are watersheds, areas or regions of special environmental sensitivity or having significant soil, water, or related natural resource concerns. Focusing the program in these priority areas will help USDA with maximizing the overall environmental benefits per dollar spent because the most significant concerns and problems will be located in these geographic areas. Farmers and ranchers located in these priority areas may be eligible for program assistance. Producers who agree to address the primary concerns in the priority area will be given preference for an EQIP contract. Producers who desire to address concerns of a secondary nature, and not the primary concerns of the priority area, will be eligible but their application will rank lower than those who will address the primary concerns. While the 1997 funding allocations process will provide a formula based on background conditions and not largely based on the CPAs themselves, this will not be the case in future years, particularly as the locally-led process is developed. We recognize that environmental problems and natural resource concerns may also occur more randomly throughout a State or region, and the program will be available to farmers and ranchers with these concerns. We call these significant statewide natural resource concerns. Second, EQIP will be implemented using the locally-led conservation process in future years. The locally-led conservation effort consists of a series of phases which involve community stakeholders in natural resource planning, implementation of solutions and evaluation of results. Locally led conservation begins with the community itself. It is based on the principle that community stakeholders are best suited to deal with local resource problems. In addition, EQIP will be administered by team USDA, utilizing the strengths of each agency in the assignments of roles and responsibilities.NRCS will, with concurrence of FSA, be responsible for policy development, allocation and obligation of funds, and providing technical assistance. The FSA will have primary responsibility for administrative functions such as enrolling applicants, administration and approval of contracts, issuance of payments to participants, administration of payment limitations and person determinations, and record keeping. Conservation districts and FSA county committees will each have a role in the local implementation of the programs. The State Technical Committee, which includes membership of a member of the FSA State Committee, will offer advice on establishing criteria and priorities at the State level. local implementation of eqip Mr. Skeen. Under EQIP the conservation districts and FSA county committees share responsibility for local implementation. How is this arrangement working in the field? Response. Conservation districts and FSA county committees are actively carrying out their roles and responsibilities under the arrangements outlined in the EQIP operating procedures. Their respective roles build on each entities strengths resulting in an efficient and effective delivery of EQIP that recognizes the importance of local input. technical assistance level needed to carryout eqip Mr. Skeen. What is the total technical assistance level needed to carryout a $200 million EQIP program? Response. NRCS estimates it could use $38 million in 1997 to provide technical assistance. The technical assistance needs will probably increase in subsequent years. We expect higher technical assistance needs in future years because: first, EQIP contracts are 5 to 10 year contracts--there will be engineering, design, oversight, and follow-up activities by NRCS in each of the years of the contract; also, many of the EQIP contracts will have structural practices, such as animal waste facilities, waterways, terraces, etc., which will require significant time commitment from NRCS engineers and technicians for the design, building, and follow-up. status of the urban resources program Mr. Skeen. Update the Committee on the status of the Urban Resources Program. Provide some examples of its successes. Response. With the help of the local community, each of these cities has established a steering committee that includes federal and state agencies, not-for-profit organizations, local businesses and foundations. The steering committee establishes the local partnership's mission, investigates natural resources and community needs, and determines priorities. Based on this information, a technical team is assembled from the governmental agencies and not-for-profit partners, that work on-site with the community members and their projects. Over the program's first two years, a federal government investment of $6 million has leveraged an additional $14 million in funding and community labor and 26,000 hours of technical assistance provided on a total of 310 projects. Examples of successes include the Greater Atlanta Community Youth Corps members learned the value of teamwork, explored cultural diversity and career possibilities, and acquire life skills. Corps members learned about the dangers of radon and install mitigation systems. They also transform derelict vacant areas into parks and gardens and created interpretative trails as part of the Environmental Revitalization and Neighborhood Improvement Project. The Chicago Urban Resources Partnership integrates the skills of participating agencies with those of community residents and organizations. Partners work side by side to create habitat for wildlife, transform vacant lots into community gardens and plant trees to reduce pollution and increase community pride. The Chicago Youth Centers Fellowship House began with a community garden and currently is working on a river restoration project. The residents of Gompers Park and the Chicago Park District teamed up to restore a three-acre wetland. The Denver Urban Resources Partnership recognizes provided assistance in the establishment of an outdoor classroom and garden where science teachers bring math, chemistry and earth sciences to life. The garden also functions as a public meeting place for citizens to work, produce food, meet other families and discuss community concerns. East St. Louis is the smallest Urban Resources Partnership city, with 40,000 residents and 20 neighborhoods actively engaged in addressing local concerns. The East St. Louis Urban Resources Partnership supports them by working with neighborhood groups to restore parks and boulevards, create outdoor science laboratories on school grounds, and study watershed management. The partnership also funds environmental advocacy and awareness projects that produce videos and other educational materials. Partnering with schools, nonprofit organizations and community groups, the Los Angeles Urban Resources Partnership addresses locally identified natural resource issues. One of the many projects targeting undeserved areas, the Friends of Castle Heights Elementary School involves students, parents and local residents in beautifying and greening neglected school grounds. Other groups such as L.A. Harvest and the El Sereno Youth Development Corporation employ youth to plant trees, clear trash and remove graffiti, while teaching them community outreach skills and conservation. The New York City Urban Resources Partnership galvanizes intergovernmental cooperation and community action by supporting the revitalization efforts of three Community Development Corporations in the South Bronx. At the West Farms Bronx River Clean-Up Day, neighborhood youth, corporate and community volunteers transformed a vacant lot adjacent to a school into an outdoor learning center with a 400-foot nature trail and newly planted trees. Youth have created ponds on vacant lots adjacent to public schools in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx as part of the URP/NYC Youth Environmental Program. The finished ponds provide educational opportunities and a place of beauty for the neighborhood. By first recruiting local nonprofit partners, the Philadelphia Urban Resources Partnership quickly established itself as a resource for community assistance. Citizens responded in force, identifying a broad range of urban natural resource problems: trash-filled lots, deteriorated parks and recreation facilities, barren school campuses, ailing street trees, stressed forested stream corridors and the need for more environmental education. Projects chosen, such as the citizen- initiated reforestation of the Wissahickon Valley and the expansion of a community garden for the disabled allow established organizations to build new partnerships. Other groups are working with the Philadelphia Urban Resources Partnership to expand their missions to include natural resource issues. The Puget Sound Urban Resources Partnership provides opportunities for children, youth and residents from diverse cultures and neighborhoods to connect urban and environmental issues and to share responsibility for solutions. Community gardens in four low-income housing projects provide residents with fresh food and places of beauty. Local and international youth worked together on an urban stream enhancement project. financial support of urban resources program Mr. Skeen. Provide a table that shows the amount spent on this program for both financial support and technical assistance since its inception. Also include the amount that has been contributed by other entities. [The information follows:] [Page 626--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] metropolitan locations of urban resources program Mr. Skeen. List the eight major metropolitan cities in the program and how much each receive. Response. The eight cities that receive funding are Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, East St. Louis, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, and Seattle. The Urban Resources Partnership cities receive $250,000 in funding from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Headquarters, in fiscal year 1996. cropland managed to enhance soil quality Mr. Skeen. What is the current percentage of cropland that is managed with conservation systems to enhance soil quality? Response. We are currently working to identify appropriate baselines to measure the progress toward the performance goals in the draft NRCS GPRA Strategic Plan. In some cases, as with soil quality, baselines will need to be constructed. We are identifying those management practices that enhance soil quality to determine number of acres that already exist, and we are putting in place the tracking system to follow the progress. water resources outcomes Mr. Skeen. Under the water resources outcomes you use different years as your baseline to measure results of two of the goals. How do you decide what to use as your starting point? What criteria do you use to establish this? Response. The baselines used in the NRCS GPRA Strategic Plan are derived from various data sets collected and used by the agency. Criteria used in the establishment of any one data base is specific to that data base and is decided by the intended need and use of the data. A data set may collect a particular attribute in one year and not measure that attribute again for a pre-determined period. Therefore, the year associated with a baseline value is particular to that data base and specified attribute. fish and wildlife habitat outcome Mr. Skeen. A goal under the fish and wildlife habitat outcome is to convert 15 to 20 million acres of cropland and/or pastureland to native prairie vegetation in the Midwest and Great Plains. Is this a goal to be reached only through administering Federal conservation programs? Is achieving this goal dependent on receiving a certain level of appropriated funds? Response. The NRCS' draft performance goal to achieve high quality habitat on private land supporting the Nation's wild life heritage is to convert 20 million acres of cropland or pastureland to native grassland vegetation by the year 2002. It is anticipated that it will require a number of Federal conservation programs, in partnership with state, local and nonprofit organization programs and incentives, and the private sector interest to achieve this goal. The USDA conservation programs important to achieving this goal include, but are not limited to, Conservation Reserve, Grazing Land Conservation, Environmental Quality Incentive, and Wildlife Habitat Incentive.All of these programs meet other needs as well and it is anticipated that no one program or one arm of government will do it all. The underlying assumptions to meet any of the performance goals stated in the Strategic Plan are that resources available to NRCS from FY 1998 through FY 2002 will be at the level outlined in the FY 1998 budget estimate. gpra pilot projects for performance measures Mr. Skeen. Both the soil survey program and the snow survey and water supply forecast program were selected as GPRA pilot projects for performance measurements. Describe this initiative in further detail and tell the Committee what the outcome of the pilots were. Response. The Soil Survey program and the Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting program were approved as pilot projects in performance measurement for fiscal years 1994 through 1996. We proposed these programs as pilots because they were examples of programs that were well positioned to comply with the intent of GPRA. Both of these programs have very specific and well-defined missions. Both had in place, and had long experience in using, procedures and systems for measuring and reporting program activity in terms of outputs. When we proposed them as pilots, both programs had already begun program-level strategic planning exercises based on the agency's ``Strategic Initiatives for the 1990's'' plan. Our experience with the Soil Survey pilot strategic planning exercise demonstrates the value of strategic planning in bringing about significant change in program operations and effectiveness. As a result of strategic thinking about our customers' needs and the opportunities for improved services presented by new technologies, we reorganized the program to conduct soil surveys on a geographic basis rather than political boundaries. This has increased the efficiency of operations and facilitates development of higher quality soil information. We have shifted priorities for program activities to focus somewhat less attention on collecting soil information and greater attention on making the information available to users. To support that change in emphasis, the program is developing additional performance measures to supplement the traditional measures of acres mapped. The Snow Survey and Water Forecasting collects and delivers time- sensitive information primarily to a specific audience of public and private sector water resource managers for immediate use. As part of its pilot activity, the program managers identified and made use of a set of performance measures that include both the output measures they had collected, such as number of reports issued, and new measures that focused on the usefulness of the information of the report. The new measures were developed by adopting a customer-focused approach. Program managers identified key concerns of their customers, developed a customer satisfaction survey form, and initiated a process for collecting customer satisfaction information. The agency has appointed a team to develop a customer-feedback system for all programs. For both of our pilots, part of the attraction of serving as a pilot was the opportunity to follow-up on the performance measurement by participating in the second round of pilots for managerial flexibility. Since this second round was not supported, the greater efficiencies that the programs hoped to achieve by participating in the pilot activity were not realized. snow survey and water forecasting program Mr. Skeen. I know the purpose of the snow survey and water forecast program is to provide western states and Alaska with information on future water supplies, but do you do any surveys in the eastern part of the country? Response. No, there are no surveys in the eastern part of the country. water bank acreage enrolled in crp Mr. Skeen. Water Bank program acreage in their last year of the contract becomes eligible for CRP. How many water bank acres have been enrolled in the CRP? Response. None to date. Only certain Water Bank--WB--program acreage is eligible under the 15th CRP sign-up, which started March 3rd and ends on March 28th. We should have information on the number of WB acres in CRP by mid June. Mr. Skeen. Do these acres have to compete with other offers? Are they required to comply with established criteria? Response. The Water Bank Contract offers will have to successfully compete in order to achieve enrollment into the CRP. Those Water Bank contracts that expired on December 31, 1997 and any that will expire this year are potentially eligible for enrollment in the current CRP opportunity. These lands are being considered under the marginal pastureland eligibility criteria. Within individual Water Bank Contracts those areas that are naturally occurring wetlands of Type 3 through 7 will not be eligible for CRP enrollment. Mr. Skeen. Are expiring water bank contract acres eligible to participate in both CRP and WRP? Response. Yes, water bank contract acres are eligible to participate in both programs. However, the landowner can seek to enroll in either program, but cannot be enrolled in both. expiring water bank acreage Mr. Skeen. Provide a table that shows a breakout, by year, of the number of expiring acres in the water bank program. [The information follows:] EXPIRING WATER BANK ACRES Year in which acres expire: Number of acres 1997...................................................... 63,520.7 1998...................................................... 61,697.8 1999...................................................... 74,590.5 2000...................................................... 86,430.4 2001...................................................... 113,716.1 2002...................................................... 125,719.1 2003...................................................... 69,571.3 2004...................................................... 52,369.1 wildlife habitat incentives program Mr. Skeen. A total of $50 million is available for the wildlife habitat incentives program. How much has been spent to date on this program? What are your plans for fiscal year 1998? Response. No funds have been spent at this point in time. We are presently developing the final rules to implement the program based upon public comment on the proposed rule. We will obligate funds for cost-share practices when the rule is finalized sometime this spring. We requested $20 million to be made available to NRCS in 1997 and are in the process of determining how to best allocate those funds. There are two important reasons for requesting the flexibility to utilize much of the WHIP funds early in the implementation of the Farm Bill. First, $20 to $30 million provides NRCS with sufficient funds to run a national program with the potential to attract partnerships and leverage other wildlife dollars from states, nonprofits, and private organizations throughout the country. The development of wildlife partnerships can increase the resources provided to the voluntary participants in WHIP in the form of funding and/or wildlife habitat expertise. The second reason for requesting the funding early in the life of the Farm Bill is that it may take several years for wildlife habitat improvements to occur on the landscape after cost-share practices are implemented. Putting the maximum number of agreements possible in place over the next two years allows participants and the general public to benefit from the establishment of wildlife habitat throughout the life of the 1996 Farm Bill. Mr. Skeen. How is this funding allocated to the states? Provide a breakout, by state, for fiscal year 1997. Response. WHIP funds are allocated to the NRCS States offices based on a competitive process. The first week of March States and Territories were required to submit applications for 1997 WHIP funds. They were asked to identify wildlife objectives and priorities, identify partnerships, technical information and budget needs for implementing the program in fiscal year 1997. All states and the Caribbean submitted proposals. Over $35 million was requested. NRCS is evaluating those proposals to determine how to allocate funds. State by state funding allocations have not been made at this time, but will be forwarded when they are completed. conservation farm option program Mr. Skeen. Authorized funding for the conservation farm option program increases from $7.5 million in fiscal year 1997 to $62.5 million in fiscal year 2002. Provide a breakout, by fiscal year, of the incremental funding levels. Response. Authorized funding for the conservation farm option program by fiscal year is: fiscal year 1997 $7.5 million, fiscal year 1998 $15 million, fiscal year 1999 $25 million, fiscal year 2000 $37.5 million, fiscal year 2001 $50 million, fiscal year 2002 $62.5 million. The 1997 appropriations bill limited spending under CFO to $2.0 million. Mr. Skeen. How many contracts do you plan to enter into in fiscal year 1997? How many acres will be covered by these contracts? What is the average cost per contract? Response. We estimate that between 40 and 60 contracts will be executed in fiscal year 1997. We estimate that between 20,000 and 30,000 acres will be covered by these contracts. The average cost per contract is estimated to be $50,000. Mr. Skeen. Provide a table that shows a breakout of these contracts by state and type of producers. Response. This information is not available at this time. Proposals for participation in the fiscal year 1997 program have not yet been received. However, an effort will be made to distribute the program funding geographically as well as among the producers of wheat, feed grains, cotton and rice. Mr. Skeen. Provide a list of the states where the conservation farm option program will be limited to. Response. The conservation farm option program will be available in all states where producers grow rice, upland cotton, feed grains, and corn. However, it is unlikely that contracts will be executed in every state, at least in the first few years, because of funding limitations. outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers program Mr. Skeen. Through the outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers program, agreements are entered into with community based organizations and educational institutions to provide outreach and technical assistance. What are some of the community based organizations that you have agreements with? Response. Some of the organizations we have agreements with are the Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, the American Indian Opportunities Industrialization, Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund, and the Arkansas Land and Farm Development Corporation. Mr. Skeen. Provide some examples how these groups provide this assistance. Response. The overall goal of the program is to increase the number of minority farmers and directly improve the farm income of small and minority farmers indebted to USDA through better management and financial analysis. These groups provide intensive training and management assistance both one-on-one and group training to small farmers, or ranchers, particularly minority farmers or ranchers in selected states. Each program participant is visited one to three times a month by the grant recipient's farm management specialist or advisors having expertise in farm management and production. The instruction and technical assistance provided include individualized custom farm plans, production and marketing practices, farm accounting and record keeping. The overall objective of this program is to enhance the ability of small and minority producers to operate a farming or ranching enterprise independently and produce income adequate to service debts, maintain farm operations, and provide a reasonable standard of living. Mr. Skeen. Provide an example of the training and management assistance that is provided to farmers and ranchers through the outreach program. Response. Training and technical assistance are in the form of one- on-one visits, town meetings and printed materials such as: record keeping; management of income and utilization of credit; management of resources and production practices emphasizing diversification, cultural and traditional issues, harvesting, storage, and marketing, among others: preparation of cash flow budgets and/or farm plans; and marketing of agricultural products and training on the use of generally accepted marketing tools and techniques. Mr. Skeen. How many participants were served in the program in fiscal years 1995 and1996? How many do you estimate serving in fiscal year 1997? Response. The grant recipients provide technical assistance to over 7,963 borrowers and non-borrowers in 394 counties in 23 states across the United States. Through combined outreach effort's service is provided to 52,563 farmers and ranchers. We estimate servicing 8,600 participants in Fiscal Year 1997, with the addition of two entities in California providing service to the Asian and Hispanic farming community. Mr. Skeen. Provide a list of the 28 entities that participate in the program. [The information follows:] [Page 631--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] performance measures and budget assumptions Mr. Skeen. All of your performance measures and indicators are based on budget assumptions. What if you don't receive your budget request, do you just adjust your indicators to fit the appropriation level? Response. The NRCS draft GPRA Strategic Plan set objectives and performance goals based on two assumptions: first, that resources available to NRCS from FY 1998 through FY 2002 will be at the level in the FY 1998 budget estimate. The performance goals in the Strategic Plan are the direct link to the annual Performance Plan. Performance measures in the Performance Plan are the annual increment of measure to evaluate the progress toward the performance goals and general goals in the Strategic Plan. Changes in the budget will be reflected in adjustments to the annual performance measures. The level of conservation we would expect to achieve will change with budgets differing from the assumptions. If the budget assumptions made in the strategic plan are law, we would expect to achieve a higher level of conservation for performance measures. And conversely, if the budget assumptions are high, we would expect to achieve a lower level of conservation. The Strategic Plan will be reviewed in three years. Progress toward meeting the performance goals in the Strategic Plan will be evaluated and adjustments or revisions to performance goals will occur based on budget realities or budget estimates at that time. conservation reserve program funding and staff years Mr. Skeen. Please explain why you project a decrease in the reimbursement for CRP from $78.2 million in fiscal year 1997 to $35.4 million in fiscal year 1998 while at the same time you project staff years to increase from 774 to 923. Response. The decrease in reimbursement for CRP from fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 1998 is based on the anticipated number of bids and enrollments in the program for these years. NRCS is reimbursed by the Farm Services Agency for the technical assistance costs to enroll the land when the bids are made and accepted. However, the technical assistance is provided over a two or three year period to allow for determinations of eligibility, development of conservation plans, and implementation of those plans as necessary to fulfill the conditions of program enrollment. The staff years for fiscal year 1998 increases because they include the staff years for planning and application assistance for both fiscal year 1997 and 1998 enrollments. reimbursement for foreign details and assignments Mr. Skeen. Why do you anticipate reimbursements from FAS for foreign details and assignments to increase from $84,079 in fiscal year 1996 to $361,200 in fiscal year 1997? Response. At the time the budget was prepared NRCS anticipated an increase in long term resident assignments, however, this has failed to materialize and we now anticipate reimbursements from FAS to be no higher than the amount received in fiscal year 1996. rural abandoned mine program allocations Mr. Skeen. Allocations from the rural abandoned mine program are projected to go from -$76,349 in fiscal year 1996 to $204,578 in fiscal year 1997. What is the negative value in fiscal year 1996 and why the large increase? Response. The negative value in 1996 reflects a net deobligation of contracts made in prior years that have been revised and the number shown for fiscal year 1997 is merely a reflection of unobligated dollars carried forward from prior fiscal years that will be used to continue ongoing work. sub-object class breakout for object class 25.2 Mr. Skeen. Provide a sub-object class breakout for object class 25.2 other services for fiscal year 1996, 1997, and 1998. [The information follows.] [Page 633--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] advisory and assistance services Mr. Skeen. What is the $185,000 in advisory and assistance services being used for in fiscal year 1997 and why do you project these costs to increase to $402,000 in fiscal year 1998. Response. The $185,000 shown under Conservation Operations for advisory and assistance in fiscal year 1997 is merely a reflection of the authority provided in the language for Conservation Operations and Watershed Surveys and Planning for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109. The increase in fiscal year 1998 reflects the request for technical assistance funds formerly provided under the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations programs be transferred to the Conservation Operations program. construction contract funding Mr. Skeen. Why do construction contracts decrease so significantly in fiscal year 1998? Response. The decrease in construction contracts is related to the absence of a request for emergency watershed protection dollars in the President's fiscal year 1998 budget. land and structures funding Mr. Skeen. What is the reason for the increase of almost $37 million in land and structures in fiscal year 1998? Response. The increase in land and structures reflects the payment of easements on acreage committed by landowners in prior years and actually obligated under the Wetlands Reserve Program. motor vehicle fleet Mr. Skeen. The agency owns 10,357 vehicles. In addition to these, 626 vehicles are leased through GSA. This equates to more vehicles than staff years at the agency. Why do you need more vehicles than staff? Response. NRCS Conservation Partners work with us through Memorandums of Understanding with the Secretary of Agriculture. NRCS provides technical and other tangible assistance to our conservation partners. One of the tangible ways in which we assist is to provide vehicles. This is most commonly done where Conservation District employees are often involved in doing Federal work. NRCS agreements regarding the use of these vehicles ensure that the Conservation District provide liability insurance safeguarding the Federal investment. Mr. Skeen. You are proposing to replace 150 passenger vehicles during fiscal year 1998. How many pickup trucks, light trucks, jeeps, and heavy trucks do you plan to replace in fiscal year 1998? What is the total cost to replace all types of vehicles? Response. The 150 vehicles planned for replacement in FY 1998 are passenger vehicles. NRCS currently owns 1,733 passenger vehicles which are deployed through out the United States at offices where it is the mosteconomical means of transportation or public transportation does not exist. For reasons of safety and liability, it is our policy to replace passenger vehicles that are six years old and/or have been driven 80,000 miles. Replacement passenger vehicles cost between $13,000 and $14,000 each. This planned replacement will total about $2,025,000. Additionally, we maintain a truck fleet consisting of compact and full size pickups, vans, and utility vehicles. Our current truck fleet contains 8,624 vehicles. The replacement schedule for the truck fleet is eight years old and/or 65,000 miles driven. To maintain a safe fleet which meets these replacement standards, we should replace approximately 15% of our fleet each year. Truck costs range between $15,000 and $18,000 each. To replace 15% of our current truck fleet in FY 1998 (1200 vehicles) it will cost approximately $19,800,000. training agreements with conservation districts Mr. Skeen. Why do you need specific language in the bill to allow you enter into agreements with conservation districts and other state and local entities for training expenses? Response. NRCS does not technically need to have this language spelled out in the appropriation because we have enabling legislation which allows us to work with our Conservation Partners when we are both doing Federal work. Specific language in our appropriation will enhance and highlight our partners' position when requesting local funding for training efforts which are done jointly. The language allows a broader availability for these funds to work with the conservation districts to enhance their skills. unobligated balance from fiscal year 1996 Mr. Skeen. Why is there an unobligated balance of $35 million carried into fiscal year 1997? Response. Of the unobligated balance, $35 million carried into fiscal year 1997, $3 million is in Conservation Operations and $32 million is in Watershed and Flood Prevention, the majority of which is for the Emergency Watershed Program. Of the $32 million carried over in Watershed and Flood Prevention, $22 million is for committed easements in the Midwest. Most of the remaining $10 million is for work related to the Pacific Northwest floods that requires two years to complete. reimbursement for foreign assignments Mr. Skeen. During fiscal year 1996, NRCS completed 204 assignments to 46 foreign countries. What was the total cost of these assignments and how much were you reimbursed for these costs? Response. The costs of the assignments totaled $560,000, of which $280,000 was reimbursed to NRCS. usda national agroforestry center Mr. Skeen. NRCS, the Forest Service, and the University of Nebraska operate a USDA National Agroforestry Center. What is the total cost to operate this Center? Response. The total budget for the Center is $1.68 million. Mr. Skeen. How much is provided by NRCS, how much by the Forest Service, and how much by the University? Response. NRCS provides $690 thousand, the Forest Service provides $940 thousand and U.S. Agency for International Development contributes $50 thousand. The University of Nebraska does not provide direct funds for operation of the National Agroforestry Center. Land for the Center is leased from the University, and the University is a primary collaborator on several collective projects. Mr. Skeen. Who uses the Center? Response. The National Agroforestry Center's primary clients are about 60,000 resource professionals with the NRCS, Forest Service, State Forestry agencies, Extension Service, conservation districts, and other Federal, state, and local agencies and private conservation organizations who provide natural resource technical assistance to private landowners. The Centers purpose is to accelerate the development and application of agroforestry technologies in appropriate conservation and production systems and production systems for farms, ranches, and communities. Mr. Skeen. How many requests for information were made during fiscal year 1996? Response. Approximately 2,200 requests for information were received during fiscal year 1996 which required a verbal or written response. However, about two-thirds of the Center's work involves proactively addressing information and technology barriers to agroforestry. This includes providing technical information bulletins, demonstration projects, and workshops to our clients--resource professionals. international agroforestry technology program Mr. Skeen. Describe the International Agroforestry Technology Program in further detail. Response. A Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and NRCS provides opportunities to coordinate existing and new joint ventures directed toward the international work of both agencies. Within this context, the International Agroforestry Technology Program was established at the USDA National Agroforestry Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The Program focuses on the conservation of natural resources, environmental enhancement, and supply of natural resource products from agroforestry systems to households in both rural and urban settings. An International Coordinator facilitates the development of international technology exchanges for the mutual benefit of the Forest Service and NRCS scientists and practitioners and their key cooperators. The Program directly impacts USDA's partnership with the U.S. Agency for International Development and the results of the overall national agroforestry program within USDA. Liaison activities with the International Center for Research in Agroforestry, one of the centers in the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, provides access to a network of natural resource professionals engaged in agroforestry research and training all over the world. The Program provides a means for exchange of knowledge about sustainable land use models and technologies viable for limited resource farmers, organic practices, or reduced input systems. Agroforestry is a science that looks at the interface between agriculture and forestry and is pertinent to the way many private land- owners manage their land. The awareness of traditional practices and indigenous knowledge from all over the world can be used to help develop more diverse farming systems and help diversify economic benefits from private lands. Information on specialty products incorporated into diversified systems, such as botanicals and mushroom production, can be enriched through international exchange of information and expertise. In addition, promotion of food production systems that increase food self-sufficiency will help foster political stability and facilitate more harmonious international relations. border xxi program Mr. Skeen. Describe the Border XXI Program in further detail including its cost and a list of all U.S. and Mexican federal agencies that participate. Response. The Border XXI Program is a binational effort which brings together the diverse U.S. and Mexican federal entities responsible for the shared border environment, to work cooperatively toward fulfilling the mutual goal of sustainable development through protection of human health and the environment and proper management of natural resources in both countries. Unsustainable practices in the border region have resulted in the degradation of environmental health conditions. While industrialization and growth have brought important economic benefits to the border area, they have been accompanied by population growth and development practices which place a severe strain on the region's infrastructure, environment and natural resources. Currently, these conditions pose significant health risks to border residents. The central strategy of Border XXI emphasizes public involvement; decentralization of environmental decision-making through state and local capacity building; and improved communication and cooperation among federal, state and local government agencies. Collectively, these strategies will lead to regional, community-based or ecosystem-based approaches to environmental management, new mechanisms for problem solving and environmental decision-making, and more effective targeting of limited resources aimed at improving human health and environmental conditions in the border area. Both governments support and ensure effective coordination of bilateral efforts through nine binational, multi-agency Border XXI workgroups which correspond to the following subjects: environmental information resources, natural resources, water, air, hazardous and solid wastes, pollution prevention, contingency planning and emergency response, environmental health, and cooperative enforcement. The success of Border XXI is contingent upon broad-based, binational participation by Federal, state and local governments, international institutions, academic, non-government organizations, the private sector, and border citizens and communities. State, local, and tribal entities have a broad understanding of the particular problems and solutions impacting their communities. In Mexico, the six border states and principal border municipalities are actively engaged in Border XXI. In the U.S., the four border states, as well as counties, municipalities, and Indian Nations located in the border region are involved in the Program. The key federal agencies involved in developing and implementing Border XXI include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency which has overall leadership; U.S. Department of Interior; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Mexico's Secretariat for Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries; U.S. and Mexican Sections of the International Boundary and Water Commission; and Mexico's Secretary of Health. Other important federal participants include the U.S. Department of State; U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; U.S. Agency for International Development; U.S. Department of Justice; National Institute for Statistics, Geography, and Information; Mexico's Secretariat of Foreign Relations; and Mexico's Secretariat of Social Development. No funds were expended by NRCS in fiscal year 1996. united states and taiwan collaborative program Mr. Skeen. I read in the budget justifications where the U.S. and Taiwan have agreed to share conservation technology and establish a site in the Pacific Basin Area to develop and transfer technology. Describe this initiative in further detail including the cost contributed by each participating entity and where this site will be located. Response. The U.S. is participating in a collaborative program with Taiwan on conservation technology designed for use on steep slopes. The Soil and Water Conservation Bureau in Taiwan has agreed to share the technology with NRCS and participate in its installation at the Ija Agricultural Experimental Station which is owned by the University of Guam. The strength of the activity is the acquisition of special technology uniquely designed for application in insular areas--Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and islands of the Pacific Basin. The program began in 1996 and consists of four phases. The entire process will take two calendar years. During Phase I, six NRCS specialists, a farmer, and a university professor from Guam visited Taiwan in August 1996, to see the applied slopeland system in place and in functional form. The group viewed steep slope farming techniques and conservation practices in order to learn the installation techniques for hillside ditches and other practices in the slopeland systems. Engineering designs and drawings for the proposed steep slope farm demonstration project to be constructed on Guam have been completed. Phase II of this operation proposes that two specialists from the Soil and Water Conservation Bureau in Taiwan visit Guam in May 1997, to provideleadership in the layout and installation of the slopeland system at the Ija Agricultural Experimental Station. Installation will be an on-the-job training exercise for Pacific Basin field people and partners from the university and farm groups. The Guam Soil and Water Conservation District has agreed to serve as a local sponsor of this activity. Phase III will be an information and training period. The practice will be evaluated and adjusted to meet local requirements, and specifications will be developed for use in the Pacific Basin, Phase IV will consist of development of training materials to transfer the technology to other areas within NRCS. Taiwan is willing to share a small part of the cost but most must be borne by NRCS. This is appropriate since our agency will be the principal beneficiary. A site visit by our Pacific Basin Area staff to Taiwan was partially funded by the Soil and Water Conservation Bureau in Taiwan--$2,000. Funding by the NRCS will be required in FY 1997 and 1998 for a total estimated cost of $35,500. status of final rule for conservation provisions Mr. Skeen. What is the status of the Final Rule dealing with the change in the requirement that land coming out of the CRP not to be held to a higher standard of protection than land that has not been in the program. Response. The status of the Final Rule dealing with the conservation provisions, Highly Erodible Land and Wetland, which include CRP land coming out of the program, is being delayed due to receiving more than 1500 comments on the Interim Final Rule which ended on November 5, 1996. Each comment has to be evaluated or analyzed and addressed in the Final Rule. This process is ongoing and as soon as it is completed we will publish the Final Rule. However, we have issued National Food Security Act Manual Policy changes, December 20, 1996, on land coming out of CRP addressing this required change. That change clarifies that land coming out of the CRP will not be held to higher standard of protection than similar land that has not been in CRP. expenditures for computer hardware and software Mr. Skeen. How much have you spent to date on computer hardware and field office computing software? How much do you plan to spend in fiscal year 1997? What is the total amount you plan to spend overall? Response. From fiscal year 1991 to present, NRCS has spent a total of $71,000,000 on field office computer system hardware and software. This total cost is broken down as follows. Hardware expenditures include $32,000,000 on computer servers, $1,000,000 on modems, and $1,000,000 on printers. Software expenditures include $5,000,000 for a commercial relational database, $1,000,000 for the Unixware operating system, $1,000,000 for other commercial software, and $30,000,000 for custom software. Custom software cost breakdown includes $18,000,000 in contract support services and $12,000,000 in agency software development resources. These figures do not reflect an additional $22,000,000 in support costs, including $2,000,000 for the agency national help desk, $5,000,000 for training, and $15,000,000 in state level system administration and support. For fiscal year 1997, NRCS has identified a need for $16,500,000 in field office related hardware including servers, desktop computers, laptop computers, and printers to augment the basic functionality of its existing field office computing system, primarily for the purpose of improving office automation capabilities. These acquisitions are complementary to the draft USDA service center common computing environment design and are consistent with recommendations of an NRCS internal Field Office Automation Future Directions Task Force. Software needs include $2,330,000 for custom software and $2,200,000 for commercial software, predominantly office automation related. In light of the existing USDA moratorium on significant hardware, software, and telecommunications procurements, it is expected that actual NRCS investments could be well below these identified needs. No accurate prediction of the total cost of NRCS field office automation for the next five years is presently possible until USDA agrees on the final functional and technical specifications for the USDA service center common computing environment and an apportionment of costs among the partner agencies. contract with national systems and research company Mr. Skeen. National Systems and Research Co. has been awarded a $212 million, five-year contract to upgrade computer and communications systems for your agency and FSA. Describe this contract in further detail and tell the Committee how this $212 million will be spent. Response. National Systems and Research Company is one of 6 vendors awarded a contract under a competitive procurement by the Farm Services Agency. The scope of the contract provides for a wide range of IRM support services, including software engineering and development, automation studies, GIS development, open system design, operations support for computer and telecommunications networks, database application development and support, help desk support, and training. The procurement resulted in the award of 6 indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts to separate vendors. The $212,000,000 is the total amount of delegated procurement authority issued to the FSA contracting officer for contracts. Each of the 6 contracts has a minimum guarantee of $5,000 per year, and a maximum amount of $43,240,000 per year. The contracts are expected to support maintenance of current NRCS and FSA computing systems, and the development, deployment, and support of new computing systems for service centers, administrative convergence, and other initiatives under the auspices of the departmentally coordinated technical architecture and approved agency information system plans. Specific, appropriately approved tasks, aligned with agency and departmental plans, will be competed among the 6 contractors. Any work performed for NRCS with these contracts is subject to departmental moratoriums and directives. Further specific regarding the contracts or delegated procurement authority are available from the FSA contracting officer. liaison positions Mr. Skeen. You have a number of liaison positions with EPA, TVA and the Southeast Egg and Poultry Association. Were these positions created at the request of the supporting party or your agency? Response. These positions were created at the request of the supporting party. offices on reservations Mr. Skeen. How many suboffices do you have operating on reservations? Response. We have thirty four offices at tribal headquarters which operate on a full time basis and seventy one which operate on a periodic basis, usually one day a week or as the tribe has requested. management of resources on reservations Mr. Skeen. The American Indian Agricultural Resources Management Act of 1993 requires the development of 10 year plans for the management of resources on all reservations in the Nation. What is the status of this requirement? Response. It is my understanding that Bureau of Indian Affairs is about to publish regulations on preparation of these 10 year plans this spring. Tribes will then need assistance in many cases to assess their resources and develop a sound planning process including tribal member input into what they want their reservations to be at some point in the future. A major strength of NRCS is it's area planning capability, which we are employing across the country. This technology and technical assistance will be available to tribes who requested NRCS planning assistance. outreach worker effort Mr. Skeen. How many American Indian farmers and ranchers have been hired to meet with Tribes and members to explain USDA programs? Response. NRCS provides leadership for three other USDA agencies-- FSA, FAS, and APHIS--on a contract with IAC for the ``Outreach Worker'' effort. IAC has currently five part time employees providing outreach to tribes across the country. They also have an agreement with the Montana/Wyoming Stock Growers Association to provide outreach to four mountain states. task force on agricultural air quality Mr. Skeen. Who serves on the Task Force on Agricultural Air Quality and how often do they meet? Response. The task force is anticipated to meet at least 4 times annually. A list of the members of the Task Force on Agricultural Air Quality follows. Members of Task Force on Agricultural Air Quality 1. Mr. Emmett W. Barker, Jr.--President, EMI, Chicago, IL. 2. Ms. Phyllis Breeze--Planning and Grants Specialist, Colorado, Department of Health and Environment, Denver, CO. 3. Dr. Victor S. Chavez--Physician, Lubbock, TX. 4. Dr. Manuel Cunha, Jr.--President, Nisei Farmers League, Fresno, CA. 5. Dr. Thomas J. Ferguson--Physician, Univ. CA, Davis, CA. 6. Mr. Wm. R. Hambleton--Agricultural Advisor, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pullution Control District, Fresno, CA. 7. Mr. Eric G. Hurley--Project Manager, Central WI Windshed Partnership, Hancock, WI. 8. Mr. Jerold R. Masters--Exec. VP, Arkansas Pork Producers Assn., Dover, AR. 9. Dr. Joe Miller--Supervisory Plant Physiologist Research Leader, ARS, Raleigh, NC. 10. Ms. Mary Nichols--Asst. Admin., Office of Air and Radiation, EPA, Washington, DC. 11. Dr. Calvin Parnell--Engineer, Professor, Texas A&M. College Station, TX. 12. Dr. Robert Quinn--Prof. of Geography, Consulting Meteorologist, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA. 13. Dr. Clinton Reeder--Farmer, Economic Consultant, Pendleton, OR. 14. Dr. Keith Saxton--Research Eng., ARS, Pullman, WA. 15. Mr. J. Read Smith--Farmer/Rancher, Portland, OR. 16. Dr. John Sweeten--Prof. and Resident Director, Texas Ag. Exp. Station, Amarillo, TX. 17. Mr. James Trotter--Farmer, Macomb, IL. 18. Mr. Dennis Tristao--Env. Affairs Officer, JG Boswell Co., Corcoran, CA. 19. Dr. Michael Veenhuizen--Engineer, Owner, Livestock Eng. Solutions, Greenwood, IN. 20. Dr. Philip Wakelyn--Manager, Env. Health and Safety, National Cotton Council of America, Washington, DC. cost of 1997 national resources inventory Mr. Skeen. What is the total cost estimate for the 1997 National Resources Inventory? Response. The total cost estimate for the 1997 National Resources Inventory is $39 million. This estimate is based upon workload analyses performed by the Inventory Collection and Coordination Sites conducted in the spring of 1996 and costs for National Resources Inventory personnel at National Headquarters, the National Resources Inventory and Analysis Institute, and the National Cartographic and Geospatial Center. The cost spans the three fiscal years of 1996 through 1998. The estimate includes costs for personnel and overhead, travel vehicles, supplies, equipment, space, imagery, and training. multi-state inventory collection and coordination sites Mr. Skeen. Provide a list of the 21 multi-state inventory collection and coordination sites that have been established. [The information follows:] Inventory Collection and Coordination Sites East Region: Amherst, MA, and Morgantown, WV. Midwest Region: Madison, WI, E. Lansing, MI, and Ames, IA. Northern Plains Region: Bozeman, MT, Salina, KS, Lakewood, CO, and Bismarck, ND. South Central Region: Temple, TX, and Little Rock, AR. Southeast Region: Raleigh, NC, Auburn, AL, and Lexington, KY. West Region: Portland, OR, Davis, CA, Reno, NV, Anchorage, AK, Phoenix, AZ, Boise, ID, and Spokane, WA. data gatherers for the national resources inventory Mr. Skeen. How many data gatherers will be hired for this work? How many will be trained in 1997 and at what cost? Response. Completion of the 1997 NRI will require 108 staff years in addition to permanent NRCS staff. This means that 108 data gatherers will be hired for one-year appointments, or, more likely, between 200 and 300 individuals will be hired for temporary positions lasting several months. Approxmately 740 data gatherers will be trained in 1997. Between 90 and 100 data gatherers will be trained in Ft. Worth in April during four ``train-the-trainer'' sessions. The total cost of these four sessions is $250,000, based on estimates of travel, per diem, salaries, and training materials for both the attendees and the instructors. Approximately 640 additional data gatherers will be trained by those attending the Ft. Worth sessions. The cost of this training is estimated at $615,000, based on 4 days of salary, but no travel on the assumption that they will be trained locally. The grant total for training 740 data gatherers is $685,000. data gathering timetable Mr. Skeen. You anticipated that data gathering will begin in March 1997 and continue through mid 1998. Did you begin on time? Response. Congressional activity related to changes in farm policy resulted in the 1996 Farm Bill. Resource issues related to the impacts of that Act prompted an Agency announcement of the 1996 Special National Resources Inventory--NRI. This special inventory was designed to measure and record changes in selected land cover/use, changes in the extent and intensity of production, and changes in soil conservation practices. The inventory gathered data on 4,003 NRI primary sample units located in 191 counties. The 1996 special inventory significantly impacted planned milestones for the 1997 NRI. New technologies for inventory collection that result in more efficient, timely, and quality data are being incorporated into the 1997 inventory. One of these technologies is the use of hand-held personal digital assistants. A Departmental moratorium on information technology acquisition has delayed the planned availability data of the full quantity of this hand-held equipment needed to complete the inventory. Concentrated pre-data gathering activity for the 1997 NRI began in January 1997. Actual data gathering will begin in mid-April and proceed through the spring of 1998. examples of snotel data collected Mr. Skeen. Provide some specific examples of how the SNOTEL data collection system mitigated the 1996 floods in the Northwest. Response. Regional and local water management officials mitigated damages from the February 1996 floods in the Pacific Northwest by using SNOTEL--SNOw TELmegry--information made available by the NRCS through the Internet to predict the height and timing of flood crests, assess risk based upon thosepredictions and to take appropriate actions to minimize loss of lives and property. The SNOTEL system provided the only automated data available from critical watershed areas that were feeding the flooding events. When significant precipitation was forecast for the Lake Tahoe area during Christmas 1996 and New Year's 1997, the NRCS Water Supply Specialist in Nevada requested hourly data collection from 24 SNOTEL stations in the Sierra Nevada mountains. The hourly information provided by the SNOTEL stations verified the heavy precipitation and warm temperatures at high elevations. Several SNOTEL stations reported daily precipitation totals of five to seven inches and storm totals of up to 25 inches which, in tandem with rapid snowmelt, were the driving forces behind the record floods. cost for additional snotel sites Mr. Skeen. You estimate that an additional 200 stations may be required to meet the growing need for water supply and natural resources information in remote areas. What would be the cost of providing these stations? [The information follows:] cost for 200 additional snotel sites Total non-recurring cost: $20,000/SNOTEL Site (all equipment, travel, and installation costs over a four year period)......................................... $4,000,000 Annual recurring costs: 8 FTE's....................... 828,000 $1,000/SNOTEL site--Operation and maintenance (200 sites)............................................... 200,000 $68,000/FTE for 5 State data quality control specialists.......................................... 340,000 $96,000/FTE for 3 National Water and Climate Center personnel (data management specialist, quality control specialist, forecast hydrologist)............ 288,000 joint usda-corps of engineers studies Mr. Skeen. How many joint USDA-Corps of Engineers studies are ongoing? Response. There are no USDA-Corps of Engineers studies are ongoing at the present time. policy coordination council Mr. Skeen. What is the purpose of the Policy Coordination Council organized by the Secretary? Who serves on this Council and how often do they meet? Response. The Policy Coordination Council has not been active since reorganization, but discussions are being held to review the purpose and potentials for the Council. loan request under rural business cooperative service Mr. Skeen. Have you had any requests for loans through the rural business-cooperative service in fiscal years 1995 or 1996? Response. There were no requests for loans in 1995 or 1996. new programs under ccc Mr. Skeen. The CCC was created in 1933 to stabilize, support, and protect farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities; and to help in the orderly distribution of these commodities. How do the newly created conservation programs such as the Wildlife Habitat Incentives program fall within this mandate? Response. The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996--the 1996 Act--, imposed a very significant change within CCC when it added to the mission of CCC, carrying out conservation or environmental programs authorized by law. This change in mission occurred on January 1, 1997. Therefore, the new conservation programs are in keeping with the new role of CCC. management of ccc Mr. Skeen. The management of CCC is vested in a Board of Directors. Who serves on this Board? How often do they meet? What involvement or say do they have in how CCC funds are used and for what purpose? Response. The Board of Directors is chaired by the Secretary. The 7 board members include: the Deputy Secretary as the Vice Chairman; the Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services; the Under Secretary, Rural Economic and Community Development; the Under Secretary, Food and Consumer Services; the Under Secretary, Research, Education and Economics; the Assistant Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory Programs; and the Administrator of Farm Service Agency. The board has been meeting approximately once each year to take action on CCC dockets. When the board is not meeting, the Secretary approves activities of CCC until they can be ratified at the next board meeting. The administration of everyday activities is delegated by the Secretary to one of the officers of the corporation to oversee. The 1996 Act specified the amount of CCC funds that could be used for many of the conservation programs, the Board has not met to specifically address the use of CCC funds for conservation programs. funding for whip and eqip Mr. Skeen. In the budget justification you state that Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) and Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) technical assistance funding are not effected by the Farm Bill section 11 cap and yet you are not receiving the full amount needed for EQIP from CCC. Why is this the case? Response. The 1996 Farm Bill provides funding for WHIP through CRP, in the amount of $50 million for fiscal years 1996 through 2002. NRCS can useConservation Reserve Program (CRP) 1996 unobligated funds to provide technical assistance costs. The 1996 Farm Bill also established EQIP and authorized funding beginning 1996 through 2002, through the use of CCC funds to include technical assistance costs. NRCS estimates it could use $38 million in 1997 to provide technical assistance. Currently a study is being conducted to provide the administration with a detailed analysis of the technical needs of NRCS for EQIP as well as conservation operations. outreach efforts with both state and non-governmental entities Mr. Skeen. I read in the notes where outreach efforts to join in partnerships with both state and non-governmental entities are being featured in the 1997 program delivery. Specifically, what are you doing in this area? Response. We established the Capacity Building Task Force that has the support and sponsorship of USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service, National Association of Conservation Districts and the National Association of State Conservation Agencies. This task force works with conservation districts in providing general concentrated training in the general areas of leadership development, communications, and conservation partnerships. watersheds designated as priority areas Mr. Skeen. How many watersheds are designated as priority areas and for what reason? Response. For the EQIP, State Conservationists, with the advice of the State Technical Committee have designated 608 priority areas. Of these priority areas, many are defined by watershed boundaries. However, some are defined by natural resource boundaries other than a watershed boundary. The CRP has 107 priority areas established. These priority areas are, also, defined by watershed boundary, in some cases, and other natural resource boundary, in other cases. comparison of fpp and cfo with wrp and crp Mr. Skeen. How are the FPP and CFO programs different from the WRP and CRP programs? Response. The Farmland Protection Program (FPP) protects prime or unique farmland, lands of State or local importance, and other productive soils from conversion to nonagricultural uses. It provides matching funds to leverage funds from States, Tribes, or local government entities that have farmland protection programs. The FPP establishes partnerships with State, Tribes, and local government entities to acquire conservation easements or other interests in land. It protects strategic farmland from urbanization. It helps ensure that the valuable farmlands are preserved for future generations. It also helps maintain a healthy environment and sustainable rural economy. The easement acquisition is on a voluntary base. Qualifying farmland must have a pending offer from a State, Tribe, or local farmland protection program; be large enough to sustain agricultural production; be accessible to markets for what the land produces; have adequate infrastructure and agricultural support services; have surrounding parcels of land that can support long-term agricultural production; and experience urban development pressure. When selected, a conservation plan consistent with other conservation programs is required for each farm. The Wetlands Reserve Program--WRP--is a voluntary incentive program to assist owners of eligible lands to restore and protect wetlands and necessary adjacent upland areas. WRP preserves, protects, and restores valuable wetlands mainly on marginal agricultural lands where historic wetlands functions and values have been either totally depleted or substantially diminished. Wetlands restoration of such marginal lands provides landowners with a financial alternative to continued attempts to produce agricultural products on such high risk lands. Program delivery is designed to maximize benefits to wildlife, to provide for water quality and flood storage benefits, and to provide for general aesthetic and open space needs. Many of the WRP project sites are within areas that are frequently subjected to flooding and the flood storage being provided will lessen the severity of future flood events. The WRP is making a substantial contribution to the restoration of the nation's migratory bird habitats, especially for waterfowl. Under the WRP, the Secretary of Agriculture acquires permanent easements and 30-year easements, enters into restoration cost-share agreements/contracts, provides for overhead costs associated with the cost of purchasing an easement or establishing an agreement, develops wetland restoration plans, cost-shares the restoration, and monitors the maintenance of the easements and agreements. Close cooperation with other Federal and State agencies and private conservation entities is an integral aspect of program delivery. The State Conservationist, in cooperation with the State Technical Committee, is responsible for WRP implementation and operations. The type of land being protected by the FPP is significantly different from the type of land being protected by the WRP. The FPP and WRP both utilize easements, however, under the FPP the easements are generally permanent. The FPP is administered through cooperative agreements with state and local farmland protection programs. The Conservation Farm Option (CFO) pilot program provides producers of wheat, feed grains, cotton, and rice who are enrolled in AMTA one consolidated USDA conservation program payment, in lieu of the many conservation programs that are available. Producers must implement a conservation plan that addresses soil, water, and related resources, water quality, wetlands, and wildlife habitat. The statute provides broad discretion in designing CFO pilots, and provides the opportunity to tap local agricultural initiatives and innovations for improving environmental quality. We envision CFO as an opportunity to test the feasibility of innovative program delivery processes and innovative solutions to environmental concerns. We look to the locally-led effort to provide many of the ideas for innovative pilots. The innovations tested through the CFO may well be the basis for changes in statutory authorities for conservation programs into the 21st century. In fiscal year 1997 pilots will be determined through a Request For Proposal in the Federal Register. The CRP is a voluntary program that offers annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to establish approved cover on eligible cropland. The program encourages farmers to plant permanent areas of grass and trees on land that is subject to erosion, to improve soil, water and wildlife resources. Contracts are for between 10 and 15 years. CFO will be administered as a pilot program, therefore, will probably not be available nationwide, as is CRP and WRP. The pilots will encourage innovation, which may be transferred to use in CRP or WRP after being proven through the pilots. The CRP provides for a payment limitation, which is not required under CFO. land evaluation and site assessment system Mr. Skeen. Describe in further detail the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment System. Response. The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment System was designed to help elected officials, citizens, farmers, soil conservationists, and planners rate a tract's soil potential for agriculture, as well as social and economic factors, such as location, access to market, and adjacent land use. It is a tool for identifying and taking into account the adverse effects of federal programs on farmland protection, and to ensure that federal programs are compatible with state, local, and private programs to protect farmland. States and local governments have modified the rating system to reflect local conditions and have often made part of their land use planning program. third party certification Mr. Skeen. The farm bill allows for third parties to certify crop residue measurements. When will methodologies for these measurements by third parties be available? Response. The National Food Security Act Manual, Third Edition, Amendment 2, issued November 1996 established the following measurement techniques and methodology for person (producer) and third party certification. Interested producers and third party vendors should contact their local NRCS field office or state office for more information on their options. NRCS, in cooperation with the Agricultural Research Service--ARS-- will develop technical guidelines for residue measurement. Note: Some of the methods listed in this table are still undergoing improvement and development by ARS and NRCS. Currently, there are several crop residue measurement techniques. We will provide a table to describe those primarily in use. [The information follows:] [Page 644--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] third party crop residue measurements Third parties are any non-NRCS individuals who provide crop residue measurement, or other services to producer-clients. For purposes of 1985 Act, as amended, NRCS will provide for a process to certify that the third party has, attended a residue measurement course and demonstrated the ability to compute percent residue cover using existing, accepted methods. Note.--Neither USDA nor NRCS guarantees or warrants (implicitly or explicitly through this process or any other) the work of any third party provider of technical services. training The State Conservationist, in consultation with the State Technical Committee, will establish: a training format; a standard training content for the State; the appropriate measurement methods for the State; and, a training cadre composed of NRCS and non-NRCS persons. Training will be scheduled by NRCS Field Office personnel. Guidelines will be based on training requests and other factors pertinent at the State and local level. crp delay Mr. Skeen. The Administration's announcement to use the savings of $65 million from the delay of enrolling 2 million acres into the CRP program in 1997 for the Crown Butte New World Mine Exchange has raised objections from many members of Congress. It also raises some questions. Is this savings of $65 million a USDA, OMB, or CBO scored savings? Response. The Administration estimates that deferring two million acres from the current CRP signup for one year will save about $103 million over five years. Mr. Skeen. Provide the Committee with a copy of the language that resulted in this savings. Response. Legislative language to enable the exchange of Federal assets for the New World Mine property has not yet been developed. Mr. Skeen. How many jobs are impacted by this proposal? Response. We would not anticipate on jobs since all we are proposing is to defer a small portion of the projected CRP enrollment for one year. Mr. Skeen. As part of the agreement, Crown Butte Resources, Ltd. is required to set aside $22.5 million for reclamation activities. Will this $22.5 million come directly from the $65 million up front? Response. Yes, the $65 million includes the $22.5 million that will be set aside for reclamation activities. Mr. Skeen. The biggest question I have is the timing of this agreement. Bids for the 1997 CRP program are now being offered. This process has begun, but the Crown Butte initiative has a long way to go. the company has 30 days to respond to the proposal, land appraisals have to be completed, a cleanup consent decree must be negotiated, a public notice and comment period has to be initiated, and legislation has yet to be submitted and enacted. My guess is the 1997 CRP sign-up will happen long before these issues will be resolved. What happens to the $65 million in savings if this agreement doesn't happen for one reason or another? Response. If we are not able to implement this agreement in time for the upcoming 15th signup, we will attempt to initiate the deferral of CRP acreage during the 16th signup. Depending on how early or late this signup is held will determine whether we can realize the savings in FY 1998 or FY 1999. conservation reserve program Mr. Skeen. Congressman Peterson has introduced a bill to allow the Secretary to extend expiring CRP contracts for one year. What is the Administration's position on this bill? Response. The Department of Agriculture does not recommend the enactment of legislation allowing for the extension of any expiring CRP contracts. We believe that the most environmentally sensitive acres should be selected to be enrolled or reenrolled in the CRP. Extending less sensitive acreage for another year would diminish the benefits that could be obtained from the program and would not be a judicious use of taxpayer dollars. environmental benefits index (ebi) summary Mr. Skeen. What criteria will be used to determine how to maximize environmental benefits in the new program? Response. An EBI has been utilized to prioritize and rank CRP offers since the tenth signup. The EBI was developed to comply with section 1234(b)(3) of the Food Security Act of 1985 as amended by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 which provided that ``in determining the acceptability of offers the Secretary may take into consideration the extent to which enrollment of the land that is the subject of the contract offer would improve soil resources, water quality, wildlife habitat, or provide other environmental benefits.'' When a producer submits a CRP bid, NRCS collects data for each of the EBI factors of the land offered. Each bid is assigned a point score based upon the relative environmental benefits of the bid. At the close of sign-up, this information for every bid offered is transmitted to the national office. Bids are then ranked in comparison to all other bids offered nationally, and selections are made from that ranking. Mr. Skeen. Submit criteria used for the record. [The information follows:] [Pages 647 - 658--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] watershed and flood prevention operations Mr. Skeen. How many ongoing watershed projects are there? Response. There are 543 ongoing watershed projects. Mr. Skeen. What is the total amount in financial assistance needed to complete all ongoing projects? Response. The total amount of financial assistance to complete all ongoing projects is $746 million. Mr. Skeen. How many projects are on the waiting list to receive financial assistance? Response. There are approximately 213 projects on the waiting list to receive financial assistance. Mr. Skeen. What is the amount needed to complete those on the waiting list? Response. The amount needed to complete those projects on the waiting list is $127.0 million per year for the next five years. Mr. Skeen. Why do you need to spend 60 percent of the program on salaries? Response. Traditionally, PL 83-566 funds have been allocated to states based upon identified needs and priorities. Historically, approximately 30 percent of the funds were for technical assistance-- TA--and 70 percent for financial assistance--FA--for construction contracts. As funds decreased, a higher percentage has gone into technical assistance in order to maintain technical capacity in areas of water resources planning specialists, design and construction engineers, construction inspectors, and contracting specialists. In addition, the program emphasis has shifted into more nonstructural solutions and land treatment measures for watershed protection and water quality which require a larger percentage of technical assistance to administer than do large construction contracts. As the program moves away from the traditional flood control structural measures, many sponsors and individuals are willing to pay a larger percentage of the cost of construction if NRCS provides the technical assistance. In fact a number of sponsors or other organizations are paying 100 percent of the construction cost. I do not feel the traditional 30/70 ratio of TA/FA is an accurate way to administer the program; however, our initiative for the watershed program is to move towards this ratio in the future. In fiscal year 1996 the ratio was about 30 percent FA and 70 percent TA. The ratio in fiscal year 1997 was 43/57 TA/FA. Because funding for financial assistance will be limited, regardless of the ratio used, funds will be made available to projects according to a competitive funding mechanism for targeting assistance toward the highest ranked projects. These are the high-priority projects that provide the highest net benefits to society, considering economic, social and environmental factors. For those sponsors with lower priority projects that would prefer not to alter their projects to increase its economic or environmental benefits--making it more competitive--or to wait, up to $15 million is available for loans made through the rural development programs, such as Rural Utility Service's water and waster water loans. These are subsidized loans, in which, depending upon the income of the community, the interest rate of the loan can be reduced. Roughly $150 million in loans will be available to local sponsors. These actions will allow NRCS to both target resources to achieve the greatest societal impact with funds, as well as to spread the funds out and offer support to the maximum number of sponsors. Mr. Skeen. Can you tell us what the percentage breakout between technical and financial assistance was for the past five years? If you don't have that at your fingertips, you can supply it for the record. [The information follows:] WATERSHED OBLIGATIONS OBLIGATION BREAKDOWN ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Technical Financial Fiscal year assistance assistance (percent) (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1993.......................................... 43 57 1994.......................................... 40 60 1995.......................................... 77 23 1996.......................................... 68 32 1997 est...................................... 57 43 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ strategic plan development Mr. Skeen. GPRA, known as the Results Act, requires each executive agency to issue, no later than September 30, 1997, a strategic plan covering at least 5 years. In addition to a mission statement grounded in legislative requirements, the plans are to contain general goals and objectives that are expected to be outcome or results oriented (such as to improve literacy) as opposed to output or activity oriented (such as to increase the number of education grants issued). What progress is the agency making in developing its strategic plan, including defining its mission and establishing appropriate goals? Response. A first draft agency strategic plan was submitted to USDA's Chief Financial Officer in March 1996. This draft was based on input received in the ``Reinvention Forums'' conducted in 1994-95, and on conservation partnership strategic plans developed in each of the agency's new regions. In October 1996, a second draft was completed and was made available for review on the Internet. Comments received from partners and employees were used to refine the draft for submission to the Department in February 1997. The draft includes our mission statement and two overall general goals that state the ideal conditions that would result if our mission were achieved. In addition, it includes a series of strategic objectives that identify ideal conditions for the components of each goal. For each objective the plan includes one or more multi-year performance goals that set measurable targets for accomplishment. Goals and objectives and most performance goals are stated in outcome-related terms. That is, they refer to the condition of the land or to improved management practiced by non-federal individuals or entities. Mr. Skeen. Has the agency identified conflicting goals for any of its program efforts? If so, what are the performance consequences of these conflicting goals and what actions--including seeking legislative changes--is the agency taking to address these conflicts? Response. The agency has not identified any conflicting goals for program efforts. goals of the strategic plan Mr. Skeen. Strategic plans must be based on realistic assessments of the resources that will be available to the agency to accomplish its goals. As you are developing your strategic plan, how are you taking into account projected resources that likely will be available-- especially as we move to a balanced budget? What assumptions are you making? How are you ensuring that your goals are realistic in light of expected resources? Response. Goals are based on two assumptions: Resources available to NRCS in fiscal years 1998 through 2002 will be at the level requested in the President's budget for fiscal year 1998 adjusted to include pay costs and inflation. The performance goals set in the draft strategic plan were developed through analysis of available data and information. The draft goals were reviewed by program and line managers to ensure the performance goals were reasonable. Over the next few months, NRCS will be conducting additional analysis at the national and regional levels to ensure the goals are feasible and to identify levels of accomplishment under alternative scenarios. link between strategic plan and annual performance plan Mr. Skeen. For Congress, the heart of the Results Act is the statutory link between agency plans, budget requests, and the reporting of results. Starting with fiscal year 1999, agencies are to develop annual performance plans that define performance goals and the measures that will be used to assess progress over the coming year. These annual goals are to measure agency progress toward meeting strategic goals and are to be based on the program activities as set forth in the President's budget. What progress have you made in establishing clear and direct linkages between the general goals in your strategic plan and the goals to be contained in your annual performance plans? OMB expressed concern last year that most agencies had not made sufficient progress in this critical area. Response. The general goals in the strategic plan are stated as the ideal condition that would result if our mission were achieved--ideal conditions for stewardship of the land and ideal conditions of natural resources. The strategic objectives within each general goal state the results we expect from our inputs--the results being a change in management and stewardship or a change in resource condition. Each general goal also identifies specific multi-year performance goals. These multi-year performance goals are the basis for the performance goals in the annual performance plan. By linking the contribution of each program toward achieving the performance goals in the performance plan, we can link the impacts of the agency's work to the general goals. Mr. Skeen. More specifically, how are you progressing in linking your strategic and annual performance goals to the program activity structure contained in the President's budget? Do you anticipate the need to change or modify the activity structure to be consistent with the agency's goals? Response. It will be possible to link the goals to the program activities during this cycle of planning. At present we do not anticipate proposing changes in the program activity structure. As we gain more experience in measuring outcomes and stating goals in terms of outcomes, we may find it necessary to propose changes. Mr. Skeen. Overall, what progress has your agency made--and what challenges is it experiencing--defining results-oriented performance measures that will allow the agency and others to determine the extent to which goals are being met. Response. The agency captures and reports, through its Field Office Computing System (FOCS), changes in land management as a result of its work. The FOCS is still being implemented in all NRCS offices and we still face a formidable task to capture appropriate data. Although this reporting system can measure the agency outputs, inputs, and changes in resource management, it is a much more difficult task to estimate results for the environment when improved management has occurred. The challenge with natural resource work in general is the lag time between specific inputs and results or changes in the condition of the natural resource. Currently, the agency is working to develop between technology for assessment of resources and for linking its activities to the changes in the natural resource conditions. At the National scale, the Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) gives us a tool to look at national level conditions and trends. Again, to link the changes in resource conditions and trends with program activity and performance measures still remains a challenge. results act pilot phase Mr. Skeen. If applicable what lessons did the agency learn from its participation in the Results Act pilot phase and how are those lessons being applied to agency-wide Results Act efforts? What steps is the agency taking to build the capacity (information systems, personnel skills, etc.) necessary to implement the Results Act? Response. The agency participated in the Results Act pilot phase by identifying two pilot programs that were discrete entities within its Conservation Operations account. These were the Soil Survey program and the Snow Survey and Water Forecasting program. Both of these programs had very well-defined missions and had in place procedures and systems for measuring and reporting program activity in terms of outputs. The Snow Survey and Water Forecasting collects and delivers time- sensitive information primarily to a specific audience of public and private sector water resource managers for immediate use. A part of its pilot activity, the program managers identified and made use of a set of performance measures that include both the output measures they had collected, such as number of reports issued, and new measures that focused on the usefulness of the information of the report. The new measures were developed by adopting a customer-focused approach. Program managers identified key concerns of their customers, developed a customer satisfaction survey form, and initiated a process for collecting customer satisfaction information. As a result of the pilot, the agency has appointed a team to develop a customer-feedback system for all programs. The Soil Survey program represents a highly successful example of the refocusing of a very traditional technical program as the result of a thorough strategic planning effort. (This effort was in fact largely complete when the Results Act pilot phase began.) The program's efforts as a pilot have been directed to demonstrating implementation of new strategies and to providing advice on strategic planning on other programs. The agency's primary need in order to implement the Results Act effectively is a reporting system that collects adequate information on activities and outcomes of activities available for agency managers. The reporting system must provide the information on a timely basis and at a minimal cost to field staff time. The agency has implemented an electronic information management system for its field offices (FOCS). The hardware and software are in place in all offices, and employees have been trained in its use. Field office employees are transferring information now in hard copy in field office customer case files into the electronic system. When the system is fully populated, managers will be able to obtain the detailed information they need by querying the system that front-line employees use in their daily work. agency stakeholders Mr. Skeen. The Results Act requires agencies to solicit and consider the views of stakeholders as they develop the strategic plans. Stakeholders can include state and local governments, interest groups, the private sector, and the general public, among others. Who do you consider to be your agency's primary stakeholders and how will you incorporate their views into the strategic plans? Response. NRCS's major stakeholders are resource users and managers, primarily farmers, ranchers, soil and water conservation districts, resource conservation and development councils, state conservation agencies, and otherstate entities with responsibilities relating to resource use and protection, and tribal governments. Over the past two years, opportunities for the above mentioned stakeholders to state their views and concerns were offered through public reinvention forums, farm bill listening forums, regional strategic planning efforts, and several focus group activities. Their input was used when the initial goals and objectives were developed. Subsequent strategic plan drafts were made available to stakeholder and group representatives changes were made in response to their comments. The result is the February Draft of the strategic plan. coordination with other agencies Mr. Skeen. For the Results Act to be successful, agencies with similar missions, goals, or strategies will need to ensure that their efforts are coordinated. What other federal agencies are you working with to ensure that your strategic plans are coordinated? What steps have you taken to ensure that your efforts complement and do not unnecessarily duplicate other federal efforts? Response. Several other federal agencies have varying responsibilities for conservation, protection, and development of some natural resources. NRCS has been working with the Forest Service (FS) to identify complimentary and/or duplicative goals, strategies and objectives. Within USDA, several `crosswalks' with other agency strategic plans (FSA, ERS, CSREES, APHIS, ARS, NASS) and between mission area responsibilities have been done to ensure coordination. In addition, NRCS, through numerous contacts on ongoing projects and initiatives, cooperates with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; the U.S. Department of Interior's Bureau of Reclamation and Fish and Wildlife Service; the Army Corps of Engineers; and all the Departments and agencies involved in the Federal Geographic Data Committee. NRCS also participates in the Natural Resource Performance Measurement Forum, which includes most Federal agencies that have responsibilities for managing federal lands or for aspects of environmental quality. Forum members work together to ensure good communication and to look for opportunities to develop compatible resource goals and performance measures. congressional consultation of strategic plans Mr. Skeen. The Results Act requires to consult with Congress as they develop their strategic plans. Since these plans are due in September, now is the time for agencies to begin the required consultations. What are your plans for congressional consultation as you develop your strategic plan? Which Committees will you consult with? How will you resolve differing views? Response. All USDA Mission Areas/Agencies have prepared draft Strategic Plans which are currently being reviewed by the Under/ Assistant Secretary (or other relevant official), the Senior Policy Staff and the Secretary. Upon completion of the review, the Department plans to provide copies of the Strategic Plan (including an overall Departmentwide Executive Summary and the Strategic Plans for individual Mission Areas/Agencies) to relevant Congressional Committees. Thereafter, we will look forward to meeting with Members of Staff to discuss our Strategic Plan and to solicit your input and advice on refinements to the Plan. We plan to provide copies of the Department Strategic Plan to the following Committees: Senate Agriculture Committee, Senate Appropriations Committee (Agriculture), Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, House Agriculture Committee, House Education and Work Force Committee, House Appropriation Committee (Agriculture), Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, and, House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. results oriented federal management and decisionmaking Mr. Skeen. In passing the Results Act, Congress sought to fundamentally change the focus of federal management and decisionmaking to be more results-oriented. Organizations that have successfully become results-oriented typically have found that making the transformation envisioned by the Results Act requires significant changes in what they do and how they do it. What changes in program policy, organizational structure, program content, and work process has the agency made to become more results- oriented? Response. The agency has implemented a locally led process for resource assessment and conservation needs assessment. This locally led process has broadened the group of decision makers to ensure that programs are focused on the results most important to the local community and that the cumulative effect of program implementation will mean more significant changes in natural resource condition. The agency has adopted a regional structure to place decision making closer to the field where the end users or stakeholders have input. The regional structure allows the agency to better organize and direct program input, funds and staff to solve geographic resource problems and importance. Regional coordination of local priorities will assist in maximizing and leveraging agency resources to achieve desired results. Mr. Skeen. How are managers held accountable for implementing the Results Act and improving performance? Response. Regional conservationists are accountable for achieving their share of each agency performance goal and for maintaining the capability of their region to continue to achieve the agency's mission. To assist them, the regional office staff consists of an oversight and evaluation team to ensure that program consistency and accountability is maintained in the region; an operations management and quality management team to provide region-wide management support for strategic planning and operating plans that ensure the natural resource needs of the region are addressed; and an administrative support team to ensure that operations stay within legal and policy boundaries. The National function managers are held accountable for carrying out tasks that are necessary to meet the goals in the annual performance plan and the agency's strategic plan. Individual performance will be evaluated on the progress toward the goals. Mr. Skeen. How is the agency using Results Act performance goals and information to drive daily operations? Response. The performance goals are the basis on which operational plans and project plans are developed. Operational and project plans drive daily operations. For each performance goal in the performance plan, the agency managers will determine the workload of each program. National program managers will develop and propose national plans that identify regional responsibility for each performance goal. Regions will develop a regional operating plan to accomplish the set of all program goals. A National leadership team will allocate funds to accomplish the regional plans. State offices and service centers will develop operating plans as needed to accomplish their parts of the regional plan. Service center staffs will enter activities into Field Office Computing System (FOCS), and other program data bases. Reports of activities and their effects will be generated quarterly and used in assessing individual performance of operating units and managers. State Enhancement Program Mr. Fazio. One component of the CRP rules that has come to my attention is the State Enhancement Program, and I commend you for it. California has a number of state-driven processes for addressing critical natural resource problems. In the past there has been no mechanism for incorporating CRP into a more coordinated habitat-wide and watershed-wide approach to natural resource problems. The State Enhancement Program seems to provide one. I understand Minnesota, Illinois and Maryland have submitted proposals to the department for approval under the State Enhancement Program. What is your schedule for approving those model proposals, and what is your plan for accepting proposals from additional states? Response. CCC has received proposals for a State Enhancement Program--SEP--from Maryland, Minnesota, and Illinois. These SEP proposals are being treated as pilot projects to develop a formalized competitive review process. Upon receipt of a proposal, an interagency team is formed to review the State's proposal. The team is composed of representatives from FSA, NRCS, and respective State government. Regarding the status of proposals received, Minnesota FSA and the State are in the process of developing a Memorandum of Understanding to execute the Enhancement program. Maryland is submitting new information to us regarding their proposal. And in the case of Illinois, we expect to meet with the State in April regarding their proposal and begin discussions on this matter. Additional states may submit a proposal at any time until the CRP acreage limit has been reached. A ranking process for evaluating SEP proposals and then selecting the best proposals out of all the offered bids is being prepared. Given the nature of the negotiating process between the parties involved, it is difficult to identify a schedule. Mr. Fazio. The State Enhancement Program appears to offer greater flexibility in including in the CRP land that provides critical wildlife habitat or is key to water quality issues in a watershed system, provided that the land in question is included in a conservation reserve enhancement program. Is that an accurate characterization of the program? Please comment. Response. The State Enhancement Program is the same as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. It does allow States greater flexibility to include in the CRP lands that meet a high priority environmental or natural resource objective of that State, provided it is consistent with CRP in two ways. First, it allows greater planning and more coordination of program resources, both State and Federal within a single proposal. Second, it allows for an ``enhancement'' above the type of retirement carried out by the regular CRP. For example, the CRP can offer only moderate assistance to landowners with threatened and endangered species on their lands, not because rare species are not a priority, but because of the uncertainty for after the contract period expires. With the SEP, States can offer landowners extended contracts and thereby remove that concern. SEP proposals may include benefits to wildlife habitat, especially endangered species, water quality, or other designated objective by the State. As part of the State Enhancement Program, States must specify the land types to be targeted, the amount of acreage to be enrolled, and the proposed conservation measures that will be used to attain the desired benefits. Other conditions will be announced when the terms for the comparative review process are finalized. An approved Enhancement program sets aside a certain amount of acreage for the State to enroll lands in CRP. Mr. Fazio. The rule states that the CCC may enter into ``other agreements'' with states to use the CRP to further specific conservation and environmental objectives of that state. Please explain what ``other agreements'' might look like. Response. CCC intends to use a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to execute individual State Enhancement Programs. The MOU serves to formalize and approve the provisions of a State's Enhancement Program. The MOU will outline agency responsibilities, procedures, program costs, payments, etc. However, should some form of document be found to be preferable, CCC is not restricting itself to MOUs. Mr. Fazio. Would such agreements allow greater flexibility in the goals of a State Enhancement Program proposal, such as addressing endangered species issues? Response. The State Enhancement Program provides States with the flexibility to address State-specific natural resource objectives, including endangered species preservation. The Enhancement program allows States to use CRP to help meet their specified objective, provided it is consistent with the authorizing legislation. resource conservation and development program request Mr. Fazio. NRCS has requested $18 million for the RC&D Program for ``funding local, non-federal watershed and rangeland coordinators to assist in watershed planning and rangeland conservation throughout the country, including * * * the salmon recovery sites (CA, OR, WA, ID).'' California and the Pacific Northwest are working to address the problem of declining salmon runs by encouraging local restoration of salmon habitat. One promising piece of this solution has been the formation of local watershed councils to coordinate these restoration efforts. I'm aware that many members of the Northwest delegation, as well as a number of Northwest organizations, have urged the Administration to provide $2.2 million in FY '98 for the funding of local watershed coordinators through the regional organization For the Sake of the Salmon. What is the relationship between this request and the RC&D budget proposal? Response. This designated portion of the RC&D budget includes the $2.2 million to address a short-term need to support watershed councils--originally funded by the Environmental Protection Agency-EPA. The remainder of the $18 million will go to high-environmental priority watersheds and rangelands throughout the country. These will be consistent with the conservation priority areas identified through EQIP and CRP, or they may be areas identified through the RC&Ds directly. The $18 million should be sufficient using the same calculations For the Sake of the Salmon to fund over 400 non-federal coordinators. Mr. Fazio. Will you provide pass-through of this RC&D money directly to For the Sake of the Salmon for disbursement to local watershed councils? Response. Yes, a portion of this nation-wide program can be used to help For Sake of the Salmon and would be sent in the form of a grant. Mr. Fazio. Since funding for local watershed group coordinators would further increase the demand for reliable technical assistance that NRCS provides, do you believe NRCS has adequate funding in its budget proposal to satisfy the local for demand for technical assistance. Response. The budget request represents the best effort to provide adequate assistance for critical conservation work while the Administration and the Congress tries to balance the federal budget. A higher funding level may have been proposed if this were not the case, but given the current budget constraints and national priorities this is a fair request. The Administration will work with Congress to help meet this special request for technical assistance for both conservation districts and watershed coordinators as needed to meet locally identified priorities. california's natural communities conservation planning Mr. Fazio. In California, we have many competing interests for the use of land and natural resources, including agriculture, development and conservation. California's Natural Communities Conservation Planning--NCCP--process has produced several cooperative and successful efforts to achieve balance among such competing interests. NCCP approaches conservation planning from a regional, multiple habitat perspective that provides better conservation practices and greater certainty to landowners than a more piecemeal approach offers. Would the department be open to considering NCCP plans for funding under the State Enhancement Program? Response. Provided the process described yields results which are consistent with the CRP authorizing legislation, we will gladly consider any outcomes from the NCCP. emergency watershed program Mr. Fazio. I understand that the bank stabilization program of the Emergency Watershed protection program--EWP--may be the only federal program to fund repairs to rock revetment sites. However, a site in my district--the Chico Landing to Red Bluff project--does not qualify for EWP because it exceeds the 400 square mile assistance criteria used for levee repair. Unfortunately, neither the Corps of Engineers nor FEMA have funding mechanisms for this type of repair project. It would appear as though NRCS is applying a levee policy to a bank stabilization policy when no other agency shares responsibility. Can you clarify the relevant policies in this area. If a project exceeds the criteria, where should my constituents go to accomplish this type of repair? Response. The 400 square mile limit on the Emergency Watershed Protection Program only applies to flood control improvements and not to strict erosion control measures. Erosion control measures for drainage areas over 400 square miles can be eligible for EWP if they address a sudden impairment, are economically and environmentally defensible, and do not include rock riprap, gabions, or similar measures to protect cropland. We will investigate this issue to insure our authorities and policies are being fully utilized. Mr. Fazio. I understand that NRCS requires a 30-day ``hold'' time in order to process reimbursement requests under the EWP. Unfortunately, this forces small local governments to finance up-front costs in amounts equivalent to several years of local revenues at a time when the local governments are already under stress because of the demands placed by the emergency. Does your emergency authority permit you to waive such a policy requirement? If so, has it been waived for communities in California affected by the January floods, and if not, why not? If NRCS does not possess authority to waive this requirement, what would be required to give NRCS the authority. Response. Payments made under the Emergency Watershed Protection Program are the same as all other NRCS programs and follow the Federal Acquisition Regulations. Only final payments are held 30 days. NRCS was not aware of a hardship on sponsors and has not had a request for any waivers in FAR's. We will investigate this issue in California to see if additional authorities are needed. Mr. Fazio. Several local governments in my district were recently informed that financial assistance through EWP relative to repairing, restoring, or maintaining facilities such as irrigation works is limited to work to protect against future damage to life and property but is not available to provide funds for repair work needed for damages already sustained by the facility. I can find no such restriction in the National Watershed Manual, and I understand similar projects have qualified in the past. Further, it would appear that repairing a breached levee would easily ``protect against future damage to life and property.'' Please clarify this apparent contradiction. Response. Emergency Watershed Protection funds can only be used to reduce threats to life and property and are not used to restore or replace damaged facilities. In the case of levees, plugging the breach is generally the most economical means to reduce the threat behind the breach. In the case of irrigation facilities, plugging the canal or ditch behind the damaged control works is generally the most economical threat reduction measure. There may be other programs that address damaged irrigation works and systems. NRCS will work with all facility owners and operators to identify alternate programs for restoration. urban resources partnership Ms. Delauro. I represent Connecticut's third district which includes the city of New Haven as well as rural areas. My district serves as a reminder that NRCS operates not only in rural areas, but in cities, as well as in those places where urban and rural meet. You mention the creation of the Urban Resources Partnership four years ago to address conservation concerns in cities. Has the program met expectations and what types of projects is the Urban Resources Partnership likely to support in the future? One of the critical challenges we face is to revitalize out cities. Urban conservation can help meet that challenge. Can reinvigorating our cities through urban conservation also yield benefits by slowing the urban sprawl that encroaches on valuable rural and farming areas just outside of cities? Response. The Urban Resources Partnership has met and exceeded the expectations that were originally set for the initiative. The seven federal agencies that form the core partnership have come together to work at the grass roots level with many different local entities. This partnership between the federal agencies, local government, and not- for-profits has been the cornerstone of the initiative. The Urban Resources Partnership activities include streambank restoration, erosion and sediment control projects, urban spaces/park restoration, urban forestry projects, water quality projects, environmental educational projects, public trails establishment, greenway development, urban wildlife habitat projects, and more. Future environmental efforts will be determined by a locally led and community based planning process. The Urban Resources Partnership challenges will be to respond to the natural resources issues identified through the locally led planning process that correspond to items in our strategic plan. One of the goals of the Urban Resources Partnership is to educate elected official, businesses, neighborhood groups, individuals, and youth on the importance environmental stewardship. The Urban Resources Partnership strives to install a conservation ethic in every community. Along with enhancing and restoring the natural environment within cities the impacts or urban sprawl and loss of farmland will be to the forefront. public access to digitized data Mr. Barcia. Your fiscal 1998 budget indicates that you will be digitizing soils data and using some of the latest information technologies to make these data available to the research community and the public. Could you fully describe what steps you are taking to make this data available to the public for decision making in a geographic context? Response. We are making this information available in several ways. First, the NRCS is cooperating with FSA and other USDA agencies that are to be co-located in the USDA Field Service Centers. As part of that office consolidation initiative is the development of full GIS capability to include digital orthophotography and digitized soil survey information for use in providing USDA services to the public. The Soil Survey Program within the NRCS has also been developing a National Soils Information System which is composed of databases and modules that help to analyze the data and produce reports and other information to meet customer needs and to help in the soil survey program. The current version of the National Soil Information System-- known as NASIS 3.0--is installed at 20 state offices around the county with 17 more offices scheduled to install the software in April. In these offices, all of our existing solid survey data have been converted to NASIS. In the remaining offices, our existing soil survey data are being converted to a previous version of the National Soil Information System before NASIS 3.0 can be installed. Already, NASIS is being used to manage soil survey data in some of our soil survey field offices throughout the county. In the West, in particular, our partners in soil survey--the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of Indian Affairs--are using NASIS in some of their offices to manage soil survey data and create their own interpretations and reports from the data. We are continuing to develop the National Soil Information System in cooperation with the Federal Geographic Data Committee, our National Cooperative Soil Survey partners, and the Information Technology Center in Fort Collins, Colorado. The next release of NASIS software will be in June of this year. This release will provide, for the first time, a nationally consistent and accessible client/server database architecture. This will provide all NASIS users immediate access to the nationally complete set of soil data, including all of the new interpretive capabilities. It will also provide soils data in a format suitable for use with the Field Office Computing System and the Soil Survey Geographic Database. Finally, all digitized soil surveys and their associated data sets are being archived on tape at our National Cartographic Center in Ft. Worth, Texas. The availability of the information is listed on our agency world wide web site and is provided at a minimal cost--recovery of cost of media such as tape, CD, etc.--or it can be downloaded directly from the internet. coordination of emergency work with fema Mr. Barcia. We know that following natural disasters, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is often meeting with local authorities to help design improvements to local infrastructure to mitigate against damages from future disasters. Given the amount of information that your agency has regarding soil conditions in these areas, to what extent are you involved in assisting FEMA or the local communities in designing these improved structures? Response. NRCS is required to coordinate all emergency programs with the Federal Emergency Management Agency in all Presidential declared disasters. NRCS staffs all Disaster Operation Centers and Field Offices and often is the only agency in place after the declaration is terminated. NRCS has staff on most Interagency Hazard Mitigation Teams that look at all declarations for post event mitigation opportunities. NRCS works with the FEMA Mitigation Directorate to identify and assist Mitigation Grant applications. NRCS also has authority under the Watershed Protection and Flood Control Act--PL-566--to plan and install flood control projects sponsored by local units of government. [Pages 668 - 853--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] W I T N E S S E S ---------- Page Baker, J.R....................................................... 1 Busby, Fee....................................................... 493 Clark, L.E....................................................... 493 Dewhurst, S.B....................................................1, 493 Dunn, Michael.................................................... 1 Hatamiya, Lon.................................................... 1 Jett, Carole..................................................... 493 Johnson, P.W..................................................... 493 Lyons, J.R....................................................... 493 Margheim, G.A.................................................... 493 Medley, Terry.................................................... 1 Weber, T.A....................................................... 493 I N D E X ---------- Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Page Agricultural Quarantine Inspection: Agricultural Quarantine Inspection...........................16, 42 Funding and FTE's by Airport................................. 43 Number of Staff Years Funded................................. 42 Animal Care: Animal Care, general.........................................28, 30 Animal Welfare...............................................21, 27 Stolen Dogs.................................................. 28 Animal Damage Control: Animal Damage Control........................................ 6 Cooperative Agreements....................................... 48 Cost-Sharing/Cooperative Funding............................. 94 Methods Development.......................................... 50 National Wildlife Research Center............................ 84 Proposed Budget Reductions................................... 92 Protected and Endangered Species; spending on................ 54 Wolf Damage.................................................. 6 Zero Funding for Arkansas.................................... 91 Import Centers............................................... 70 Aquaculture...................................................... 83 Asian gypsy moth/European gypsy moth............................. 61 Asian Longhorned Beetle.......................................... 86 Biography of Terry L. Medley..................................... 176 Biotechnology: Permits...................................................... 61 Staffing and Funding......................................... 72 Boll Weevil...................................................... 39 Bovine Leukosis-Free Herd Certification Program.................. 78 Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy--BSE........................23, 62, 87 Brown Citrus Aphid............................................... 77 Brown Tree Snake................................................. 61 Brucellosis...................................................... 31 Budget Request--APHIS............................................ 2 Budget Request History........................................... 74 Buildings and Facilities.........................................57, 85 Cattle Tick Program.............................................. 48 Centers of Excellence............................................ 73 Citrus Canker.................................................... 62 Contingency Fund................................................. 69 Emergency Animal Disease Eradication Organizations............... 79 Emergency Funding................................................ 61 Emergency Transfers.............................................. 64 Employment Cost Reductions/Pay Cost Increases.................... 80 Equine Infectious Anemia Program................................. 78 Explanatory Notes................................................ 257 Export Certification............................................. 82 Federal/Non-Federal Dollars...................................... 68 Fiscal Year 1998 Budget.......................................... 2 Foot-and-Mouth Disease...........................................34, 66 Foreign Animal Diseases.......................................... 82 General Accounting Office/Office of Inspector General Audits..... 75 General Accounting Office Reports................................ 75 Golden Nematode.................................................. 84 Government Performance and Results Act........................... 87 Horse Protection................................................. 31 Import/Export....................................................71, 81 Imported Fire Ant................................................60, 86 Inspector General Reports........................................ 75 Institute for International Cooperation in Animal Biologics...... 85 Integrated Systems Acquisition Project...........................41, 42 International Programs...........................................73, 82 Internet page.................................................... 20 Investigative and Enforcement Services........................... 83 Karnal Bunt..................................................55, 63, 93 Legislative Proposals............................................ 81 Livestock Conservation Initiative................................ 84 Mediterranean Fruit Fly..........................................35, 64 Mexican Fruit Fly................................................ 62 Mission Biological Control Center................................ 83 National Animal Health Monitoring System......................... 56 National Center for Import/Export................................ 81 National Monitoring and Residue Analysis Laboratory.............. 79 National Plant Germplasm Quarantine Center....................... 59 National Poultry Improvement Plan................................ 83 National Wildlife Research Center................................ 84 Non-Federal Funds................................................ 80 Noxious Weeds.................................................... 37 Olympics, 1996................................................... 85 Opening Remarks.................................................. 1 Overseas Locations............................................... 67 Pay Cost Increases/Employment Cost Reductions.................... 80 Pest And Disease Exclusion....................................... 61 Pest Detection................................................... 18 Pesticide Residue Testing--NMRAL................................. 79 Pine Shoot Beetle............................................63, 79, 83 Pink Bollworm.................................................... 69 Plant Methods.................................................... 72 Plum Island Modernization........................................ 59 Poultry Export Certification..................................... 82 Procurement Activity by Other USDA Agencies...................... 42 Pseudorabies..................................................... 35 Questions Submitted For the Record: Chairman Skeen............................................... 27 Mr. Dickey................................................... 91 Mr. Bonilla.................................................. 92 Mr. Fazio.................................................... 93 Mr. Obey..................................................... 94 Rabies Management Plan........................................... 79 Regional Consolidation........................................... 7 Regulations...................................................... 21 Regulatory Enforcement........................................... 79 Regulatory Enforcement and Animal Care........................... 29 Saltcedar Tree................................................... 86 Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards............................. 25 Scrapie.......................................................... 48 Screwworm Eradication............................................ 4, 33 Silverleaf Whitefly.............................................. 70 Statement of Mr. Medley.......................................... 211 Trichinae Pilot Certification Project............................ 78 Tropical Bont Tick............................................... 66 Tuberculosis, Bovine............................................. 40 User Fees: AQI user fees Collected...................................... 43 Import-Export user fees...................................... 71 New user fees................................................ 20 Veterinary Diagnostics user fees............................. 71 Vesicular Stomatitis............................................. 63 Witchweed........................................................ 38 Agricultural Marketing Service Administrative Costs: ADP Purchase................................................. 132 Other Services Expenses...................................... 132 Printing and Reproduction Expenses........................... 133 Travel Expenses.............................................. 132 Administrator's Statement: Hatamiya, Lon................................................ 199 Biography of Lon Hatamiya........................................ 175 Business Process Reengineering: Status and Results........................................... 102 Center of Excellence: Funding...................................................... 103 Cotton: Cotton Classing Database..................................... 135 Cotton Classing Fees......................................... 135 Emerging Democracies Program: Summary of Work.............................................. 104 Explanatory Notes............................................ 373 Federal Seed Program: Federal Seed Act............................................. 107 Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program: Payments to States and Possessions........................... 108 Field Office: Office Closings.............................................. 103 Grading: Fee Changes.................................................. 102 Grading Activities........................................... 101 Hunt's Point Market:......................................... 14 Quality and Sanitation Audits................................ 135 Quality through Verification Program......................... 135 International Trade: Imported Peanuts............................................. 103 International Trade Barriers................................. 14 Limitation on Administrative Expenses: Administrative Expenses...................................... 119 Market News: International Market News.................................... 133 Mailed Market News Reports................................... 120 Market Concentration Reporting............................... 134 Market News.................................................. 102 Market News Home Page........................................ 134 Marketing Agreements and Orders: Business Process Reengineering for Marketing Orders.......... 138 Consolidation Criteria....................................... 142 Dairy Marketing Order Consolidation.......................... 141 Marketing Order Conversion Cost.............................. 116 Marketing Order Imports...................................... 105 Minnesota-Wisconsin Milk Price............................... 118 Northeast Interstate Dairy Company........................... 138 Peanut Non-Signers........................................... 131 Pistachio Marketing Order.................................... 138 Reimbursements from Milk Market Administrators............... 132 Motor Vehicles: Passenger Motor Vehicle...................................... 133 National Laboratory Accreditation Program: Program Status............................................... 103 Organic Certification: Organic Certification........................................ 97 Organic Farming.............................................. 9 The Organic Certification Program............................ 139 Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act: User Fees and Obligations.................................... 117 Pesticide Data Program: Pesticide Data Program....................................... 11 USDA Pesticide Data Program.................................. 120 Pesticide Recordkeeping: Pesticide Recordkeeping Program.............................. 99 Plant Variety Protection: Plant Variety Protection Act................................. 136 Questions Submitted for the Record: Chairman Skeen............................................... 97 Ms. Kaptur................................................... 141 Reports: OIG and GAO Reports.......................................... 131 Research and Promotion: 1997 Research and Promotion Referendums...................... 107 Research and Promotion....................................... 105 Research Projects: Research Activities.......................................... 107 Results Act: G.P.R.A...................................................... 139 Performance Measures......................................... 131 Section 32: Commodity Purchases.......................................... 112 Emergency Surplus Removal.................................... 112 Export Purchases............................................. 112 Pink Salmon.................................................. 117 Surplus Removal.............................................. 116 Shell Egg Surveillance: Spending..................................................... 103 Staff Years: Marketing Services-Staff Years............................... 134 Standardization: Standardization Costs and Development........................ 100 Tobacco: Tobacco Programs............................................. 101 Transportation Services: Bulk Grain Facilities Study.................................. 136 International Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs.............. 136 Jones Act.................................................... 137 Rail Line Abandonments....................................... 137 Rural Bridges................................................ 137 Transportation Regulatory Actions............................ 131 Transportation Services...................................... 108 Voluntary Certification of Equipment......................... 136 Wholesale Market Development: Farmers' Markets............................................. 143 Merchant Development Program................................. 138 Wholesale Market Development................................. 104 Wholesale Market Development and Payments to States.......... 105 Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Administrator's Statement, Jim Baker............................241-256 ADP Costs........................................................ 167 Advisory Committee.........................................158-161, 162 Aflatoxin Inspections............................................ 152 Agency Resources................................................. 155 Alpha-Amylase...................................................156-157 Auction Market Failures.......................................... 153 Biography of James Robert Baker.................................. 177 Budget Request................................................... 156 Building Capacity for Implementation............................. 170 Central Filing Systems........................................... 157 Change for Results............................................... 172 Competition and Industry Structure..............................161-162 Computer Imaging................................................. 164 Concentration.................................................... 173 Conflicting Goals...............................................168-169 Congressional Consultation......................................171-172 Current Statutes and Grain Facilities............................ 144 Custodial Accounts..............................................154-155 Dealer/Order Buyer Financial Failures...........................152-153 Direct Linkages.................................................. 169 Duplication of Federal Efforts................................... 171 Electronic Odor-Sensing Instruments.............................. 164 Electronic Networking............................................ 167 Explanatory Notes...............................................449-492 Foreign Travel................................................... 165 Four-Firm Concentration Ratio.................................... 153 Generic Inspection Certificates.................................. 155 GPRA Progress.................................................... 168 Grain: Dust Explosions.............................................. 148 Exported Complaints.........................................148-151 Inspected and/or Weighed....................................144-147 Heavy Metal Testing and Analysis................................. 152 Industry Comments on Rulemaking.................................. 165 Inspection and Weighing Reduction................................ 158 Intermarket Tracking System.....................................166-167 Investigations..................................................157-158 Legal Actions.................................................... 161 License Fees....................................................162-163 Livestock Marketing Unrecovered Losses........................... 163 Livestock Slaughter.............................................. 154 Livestock Producers Complaints................................... 144 Manager's Accountability......................................... 172 Meat Packing Industry............................................ 22-23 Niacin in Corn-Soy Blends........................................ 164 OIG: Findings and Recommendations................................. 168 Review....................................................... 168 Organizational Effectiveness..................................... 167 Other Services................................................... 156 Performance Measures under GPRA.................................. 165 Performance Measures............................................. 170 Pesticide Data Program..........................................163-164 Pilot Plans...................................................... 170 Poultry Compliance: Complaints................................................... 152 Increase..................................................... 162 Proper Care and Handling of Livestock............................ 155 Questions Submitted For the Record: Chairman Skeen............................................... 144 Ms. Kaptur................................................... 173 Reengineered Quality Assurance and Control Program............... 168 Research......................................................... 163 Resources........................................................ 169 Restriction of Competition Priorities............................ 165 Slaughtering and Processing Packers.............................. 154 Staff-Year in Canada............................................. 166 Stakeholders..................................................... 171 Standards: Canadian Oats................................................ 163 Rice......................................................... 163 Soybean...................................................... 156 Two-Year Study on Wheat...................................... 157 Toll Free Hotline................................................ 152 Travel Increase.................................................. 158 Unfair Competitive Practices Investigation......................165-166 Use of Results Act..............................................172-173 User Fees: New Structure................................................ 166 List......................................................... 157 Violations......................................................164-165 World Health Organization........................................ 163 Natural Resources Conservation Service Acres Covered by PL-566 Projects................................. 586 Administration of EQIP........................................... 623 Advisory and Assistance Services................................. 634 Agency Stakeholders.............................................. 662 Agricultural Resource Conservation Demonstration Program......... 614 Biography of James Robert Lyons.................................. 668 Biography of Paul W. Johnson..................................... 669 Border XXI Program............................................... 636 Breakout of 1996 EQIP Allocation............................... 621-622 California's Natural Communities Conservation Planning........... 665 CCC Financial Assistance for WRP................................. 524 Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project Restudy....... 555 Chesapeake Bay Program........................................... 608 Comparison of FIP and SIP Appropriations......................... 614 Comparison of FPP and CFO With WRP and CRP..................... 642-643 Congressional Consultation of Strategic Plans.................... 662 Conservation Compliance Amendments By The 1996 Farm Bill......... 531 Conservation Compliance and Conservation Operations Expenditures. 525 Conservation Farm Option Program................................. 629 Conservation Program Activities.................................. 530 Conservation Reserve Program: CRP--Administrations' Position On Extensions................. 645 CRP--Differentation In The Sign Up......................... 509-511 CRP--One-year Extension On Expiring Contracts.............. 505-506 CRP Delay.................................................... 645 CRP Funding and Staff Years.................................. 632 Construction Contract Funding.................................... 634 Contract With National Systems And Research Company.............. 638 Cooperative River Basin and Management Studies................... 555 Coordination of Emergency Work With FEMA......................... 667 Coordination With Other Agencies................................. 662 Cost For Additional Snotel Sites............................... 640-641 Cost of 1997 National Resources Inventory........................ 639 Criteria For Environmental Quality Incentives Program Allocations 618-619 Criteria For State Priority Areas................................ 621 Cropland Managed To Enhance Soil Quality......................... 627 Current Status of Authorized PL-534 Projects..................... 583 Data Gatherers For The National Resources Inventory.............. 640 Data Gathering Timetable......................................... 640 Deauthorized (Canceled) P.L. 566 Projects...................... 580-582 Earth Team Volunteers.......................................... 615-616 Emergency Watershed Program.................................... 665-666 Emergency Wetlands Reserve Program............................... 521 Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) Summary..................... 645-658 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: EQIP--Feedback From Farming Community........................ 507 EQIP Allocation Formula Elements............................. 620 EQIP Allocations for California.............................. 515 EQIP Criteria................................................ 504 EQIP State Allocations..................................... 503-504 Evaluation of Conservation Operations and Watersheds Programs.... 617 EWP Supplemental Request......................................... 503 Examples of Snotel Data Collected................................ 640 Expenditures For Computer Hardware And Software................ 637-638 Expiring Water Bank Acreage...................................... 628 Expiring Water Bank Acres...................................... 628-629 Explanatory Notes.............................................. 670-853 Farmland Protection Program...................................... 615 Federal and Non-Federal Sources of Reimbursements................ 592 Financial Support of Urban Resources Program................... 625-626 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Outcome................................ 627 Flood Plain Management Study Follow-Up........................... 555 Flood Prevention Projects (PL-534)............................... 556 Forestry Incentives Program...................................... 614 Funding for The Presidential Water Quality Initiative Fiscal Years 1990-98.................................................. 606 Funding For WHIP and EQIP...................................... 641-642 Geographic Breakdown of Obligations For Watershed Operations..... 588 Geographic Breakdown of Watershed and Flood Prevention Appropriation................................................ 583-584 Geographic Information System Activities....................... 533-534 Geographic Information System Pilot Offices...................... 617 Goals of The Strategic Plan...................................... 660 GPRA Pilot Projects For Performance Measures................... 627-628 Grazing Lands: Grazing Land Related Courses................................. 611 Grazing Land Technology Institute............................ 611 Grazing Land Allocations................................... 611-612 Grazing Land Assistance...................................... 611 Five Year Annual Spending.................................... 610 Great Lakes Program.............................................. 608 Gulf of Mexcio Program........................................... 609 Headquarters Staff............................................... 525 Highlighted Major Functional Changes........................... 525-528 History of Emergency Watershed Program........................... 585 History of the Farmland Protection Program....................... 614 How Cost-Share Agreements Work................................... 522 Increase for CRP in California and Iowa........................ 516-517 Increase In Non-Federal Reimbursements........................... 588 Information and Educational Activities..........................617-618 International Activities......................................... 609 International Agroforestry Technology Program...................635-636 Inventory Collection And Coordination............................ 639 Inventory Collection And Coordination Sites...................... 639 Joint USDA-CORPS of Engineers Studies............................ 641 Lake Champlain Project........................................... 609 Land and Structures Funding...................................... 634 Land Evaluation And Site Assessment System....................... 643 Liaison Positions................................................ 638 Link Between Strategic Plan And Annual Performance Plan.........660-661 Loan Request Under Rural Business Cooperative Service............ 641 Local Implementation of EQIP..................................... 623 Major Functional Changes......................................... 525 Management of CCC................................................ 641 Management of Resources On Reservations.......................... 638 Management Recommendations For RC&D.............................593-605 Mandatory Programs............................................... 507 Methane Emissions...............................................531-532 Metropolitan Locations of Urban Resources Program................ 627 Mitigation Banking............................................... 522 Mitigation Banking Pilots........................................ 522 Model Farms Demonstrating Reduction of Methane Emissions........532-533 Motor Vehicle Fleet.............................................. 634 Multi-State Inventory Collection And Coordination Sites.......... 639 National Estuary Program......................................... 608 National Soil Information System Status.......................... 535 Natural Resources Districts...................................... 515 New and Planned PL-566 Projects.................................. 586 New Plant Releases in Fiscal Year 1996: Germplasm, Tested, and Selected Class Releases..............539-543 Cultivar Releases............................................ 539 Source Identified Releases..................................543-544 New Programs Under CCC........................................... 641 Non-Federal Watershed and Rangeland Coordinators................591-592 NRCS Budget Request.............................................612-613 NRCS Grazing Land Specialists.................................... 611 Number of Field Service Centers.................................. 616 Number of Outstanding Borrowers.................................. 592 Offices On Reservations.......................................... 638 One-Plan Concept Or Whole Farm Or Ranch Approach................. 589 Opening Remarks By Mr. Johnson..................................496-501 Opening Remarks By Under Secretary Lyons........................493-496 Other Federal and Non-Federal Obligations.......................586-587 Other Federal, State and Local Soil Survey Funding............... 535 Outreach Efforts With Both State And Non-Governmental Entities... 642 Outreach For Socially Disadvantaged Farmers And Ranchers Program. 630-631 Outreach Worker Effort........................................... 638 P.L. 566 Projects Currently Being Installed.....................557-579 Partnership Projects For Restoration............................. 524 Partnership With Fish and Wildlife Foundation.................... 522 Performance Measures and Budget Assumptions...................... 632 Physical Impact Assessment of Water Quality...................... 610 Plant Materials Centers: Operating Costs.............................................536-537 Plant Materials and Buffer Strips...........................545-546 Projects With The Department of Defense...................... 545 Policy Coordination Council...................................... 641 Prepared Statement of James Lyons................................ 670 Program Evaluation Studies....................................... 555 Program Priorities..............................................507-509 Public Access To Digitized Data.................................666-667 Public Affairs Funding Level..................................... 610 Purchase of Flood Plain Easement................................. 555 Questions submitted for the Record: Chairman Skeen............................................... 517 Mr. Fazio.................................................... 663 Ms. DeLauro.................................................. 666 Mr. Barcia................................................... 666 Regional Project Allocations..................................... 606 Reimbursement For Foreign Assignments............................ 635 Reimbursement For Foreign Details and Assignments................ 632 Rental Rates....................................................511-513 Resource Conservation & Development: Federal and Non-Federal Assistance........................... 590 Measures Adopted, Planned, and Completed..................... 590 Resource Conservation and Development.......................513-515 Resource Conservation and Development........................ 590 Loans........................................................ 591 Status History............................................... 592 Requests for 97.............................................664-665 Results Act Pilot Phase.......................................... 661 Results Oriented Federal Management And Decisionmaking..........662-663 River Basin Studies.............................................. 553 Royalty Collections For Plant Release............................ 545 Rural Abandoned Mine Program..................................... 615 Rural Abandoned Mine Program Allocations......................... 632 Small Watershed Loans............................................ 610 Snow Survey and Water Forecasting Program........................ 628 Soil and Pesticide Database...................................... 536 Soil Surveys: Program Reimbursements....................................... 535 No. Completed, Published FY 96, Estimate For 97.............. 533 No. Needing Remapping Using Natural Resource Boundaries...... 535 Printing and Distribution Costs.............................. 533 Southeast Regional Agriculture and Natural Resources Forum....... 609 State and Local Contributions.................................... 530 State and Local Funding For Watershed Planning................... 553 State Conservationists........................................... 525 State Enhancement Program........................................ 513 State Enhancement Program.......................................663-664 Status of Backlogged Projects...................................589-590 Status of Final Rule For Conservation Provisions................. 637 Status of Hydrologic Unit Areas.................................. 607 Status of Osage County Pilot..................................... 616 Status of River Basin Studies.................................... 553 Status of The Urban Resources Program...........................624-625 Status of Wetland Delineations Moratorium........................ 523 Strategic Plan Development......................................659-660 Sub-Object Class Breakout For Object Class 25.2.................632-633 Task Force On Agricultural Air Quality........................... 639 Technical Assistance for All Conservation Programs............... 530 Technical Assistance For EQIP...................................504-505 Technical Assistance For Ongoing Activities of The CRBSC And GPC Programs....................................................... 618 Technical Assistance Level Needed To Carryout EQIP............... 623 Technical Assistance Reimbursement for WRP....................... 524 Technical Service Centers and Regional Offices and Institutes.... 529 Third Party Certification.......................................643-644 Third Party Residue Measurements................................. 645 Total Wetlands Acres............................................. 588 Training......................................................... 645 Training Agreements With Conservation Districts.................. 634 Training Rangeland Conservationists.............................. 611 United States And Taiwan Collaborative Program..................636-637 Unobligated Balance From Fiscal Year 1996........................ 635 Unobligated Balance in WRP Appropriated Account.................. 522 Upland Habitat Acres............................................. 588 Urban Forests.................................................... 517 Urban Resources Partnership...................................... 666 USDA National Agroforestry Center................................ 635 USDA Service Centers............................................. 616 Use of Pelleted Newspaper On Demonstration Projects.............. 606 Water Bank Acreage Enrolled in CRP............................... 628 Water Quality: Demonstration Projects--Funding Levels....................... 608 Demonstration Projects--Status..............................607-608 Hydrologic Unit Area Projects................................ 608 Initiatives.................................................. 606 Monitoring Techniques........................................ 609 Water Resources Outcomes......................................... 627 Watershed And Flood Prevention Operations: Projects Awaiting Financial Assistance....................... 659 Obligation Breakdown......................................... 659 Percentage of TA/FA For Past 5 Years......................... 503 Status of Projects........................................... 556 Unobligated Balance.......................................... 586 Watershed and River Basin Planning Studies....................... 547 Watershed Planning Activities Funded By State and Local Governments...................................................553-554 Watershed Projects Backlog......................................501-503 Watershed Projects With Recreational Purposes.................... 585 Watersheds--Recognizing Their Value.............................. 511 Watersheds Designated As Priority Areas.......................... 642 West Virginia Plant Materials Center............................. 545 Wetlands: Wetland Delineation Appeals.................................. 523 Delineation Tracking......................................... 523 Determinations............................................... 523 Wetlands and Upland Habitat Created or Enhanced.............. 588 Created or Restored.......................................... 588 Wetlands Reserve Program....................................517-521 Wetlands Reserve Program Fiscal Year 1997.................... 521 Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.............................. 629 Witnesses........................................................ 493 WRP Mandatory Program............................................ 524 WRP Staff Years and Related Costs................................ 523 Yellowstone New World Mine....................................... 515