[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
                  AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
                  AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED
                    AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1999

========================================================================

                                HEARINGS

                                BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND 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, John J. Ziolkowski, Martin Delgado, 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

   Agricultural Marketing Service

   Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards

   Administration

 Natural Resources Conservation Service...........................  529

                              
                                ________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
                                ________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-227 O                    WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             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        ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California   
HENRY BONILLA, Texas                   NITA M. LOWEY, New York             
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan              JOSE E. SERRANO, New York           
DAN MILLER, Florida                    ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut        
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas                   JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia            
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia                 JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts        
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi               ED PASTOR, Arizona                  
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey    CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida             
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi           DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina      
MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York            CHET EDWARDS, Texas                 
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington  ROBERT E. (BUD) CRAMER, Jr., Alabama
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













     DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG 
      ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1999

                              ----------                              

                                         Wednesday, March 11, 1998.

                    MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAM

                               WITNESSES

MICHAEL V. DUNN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS
TERRY L. MEDLEY, ADMINISTRATOR, ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION 
    SERVICE
ENRIQUE FIGUEROA, 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.
    We are on the record. Today we have with us the Marketing 
and Regulatory Programs of the Department of Agriculture.
    Assistant Secretary Dunn, we want to welcome you and Mr. 
Figueroa of AMS, Mr. Medley of APHIS, Mr. Baker of GIPSA, and 
of course, we could not have these hearings and we would not 
let them go on unless Steve Dewhurst was here from the Budget 
Office.
    I would like to thank you, Mr. Dunn, for the assistance 
that the AMS and APHIS provided to me and my staff on a trip 
that we recently took to Fort Collins, Colorado. That is an 
amazing institution. We certainly enjoyed the trip and got an 
awful lot out of it.
    Mr. Dunn.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Skeen.  Mr. Dunn, I will ask you to present some brief 
opening remarks. Your written testimony, along with those from 
the three agencies, will be printed full in the record. It is 
all yours.
    Mr. Dunn.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 
Committee. I am pleased to be here before you to discuss the 
activities in the Marketing and Regulatory Programs at the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture.
    With me today is Steve Dewhurst from OBPA; Jim Baker, 
Administrator of GIPSA; Enrique Figueroa, Administrator of 
Agricultural Marketing Service; Terry Medley, Administrator of 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    We do all have written statements that we will submit for 
the record. I would also, Mr. Chairman, like to take this 
opportunity to introduce Dr. Siddiqui. Dr. Siddiqui is the new 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 
Programs.
    Mr. Skeen.  Glad to have you on board.
    Mr. Dunn.  Programs with the Marketing and Regulatory 
Program mission area contribute to all of the Department's 
strategic goals. We have activities to enhance economic and 
trade opportunity, which would significantly expand export 
market.
    We have activities to ensure healthy, safe, and affordable 
food supply--management and resources to improve our customer 
service and program deliveries. We fully support the 
Secretary's Civil Rights endeavors at the Department of 
Agriculture. The strategic goals for Marketing and Regulatory 
Programs are directed at: one, enhancing consumer access to 
safe, affordable, and quality products, and assuring that 
producers have access to competitive markets; two, facilitating 
global marketing of U.S. agricultural products; three, 
increasing customer awareness of our services; four, providing 
these services in an efficient, entrepreneurial and cost 
effective as possible; and five, creating and maintaining a 
diverse and highly skilled work force.
    Beneficiaries of program services, as well as taxpayers, 
provide funds needed to operate Marketing and Regulatory 
Program activities.
    In total, the appropriations and user fee resources are 
proposed to carry out $804 million of program level activities.
    Beneficiaries for these services pay user fees of over $397 
million. Currently, Marketing and Regulatory Programs 
administers over 50-percent of the Department user fee 
programs.
    These programs have been market tested and continue to meet 
the demanding challenges. In fiscal year 1999, the budget 
requests, an appropriation of $11.8 million for the Grain 
Inspection, Packers, and Stockyard Administration; $59.7 
million for the Agriculture Marketing Service; and $423 million 
for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services. We will 
submit legislation to recover an additional $31 million in user 
fees. The budget assumes that this legislation will be enacted.
    Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Program goals 
are: one, to ensure fair, open and competitive markets for 
livestock, meat, and poultry; and two, protect the integrity of 
the grain marketing for the benefit of American agriculture.
    The 1997 GIPSA investigated over 1,800 complaints under the 
Packers and Stockyards Act. They found 515 violations. They 
resolved 46 formal cases and issued 29 new cases alleging 
failure to fully pay livestock sellers.
    GIPSA's Federal, State, and private grain inspection 
agencies provided 2.1 million official certificates on over 225 
million metric tons of grain and oil seed.
    They also weighed over 97 million metric tons of grain and 
issued over 87,000 official weight certificates. We are 
requesting several critical increases in funding to improve our 
performance in addressing issues regarding packers and 
stockyards.
    As you know, the Secretary's Advisory Committee on 
Agricultural Concentration found an increasing concentration 
structure, declining marketing performance, and increasing use 
of complex formula and value-based marketing systems by packers 
continuing to raise questions about regulatory and policy 
significance.
    The Advisory Committee recommended resources be added to 
monitoring and investigating the anti-competitive implications 
of structural change and behavioral practices in the meat 
packing industry.
    These resources would increase GIPSA's capability to 
support legal action that require complex, economic, and 
statistical analysis.
    Recent Advisory Committee on Small Farms supported that 
conclusion. As the result, the 1999 budget proposes an increase 
of $795,000 for monitoring and analyzing packer competition and 
industry structure, $750,000 to broaden the size and scope of 
poultry compliance investigations, and $225,000 to establish 
electronic filing procedures for annual reports which could 
save packers costly paper submissions.
    In addition, the budget requests $3 million to reorganize 
the 11 Packers and Stockyards field offices in order to 
implement the Office of the Inspector General's recommendations 
for improving Packers and Stockyards investigative capability.
    Packers and Stockyards would target their resources at 
three major centers: beef, pork, and poultry production 
andslaughter. The fiscal year 1999 budget, again, proposes legislation 
to authorize the collection of license fees to administer all 
activities under the Packers and Stockyards Act. It will also include a 
proposal to cover the cost of developing grain standards and methods to 
improving grain inspection activities.
    The Agricultural Marketing Service Program goals are: one, 
to facilitate the strategic marketing of agricultural products 
in domestic and international markets; and two, to ensure fair 
and competitive marketing.
    Recently, the Agricultural Marketing Service published a 
proposed rule to establish national standards for organic 
production, and a proposed rule to reform the milk marketing 
orders.
    The National Organic Program addresses the methods, 
practices, and substance used in producing and handling organic 
crops, livestock, and processed products. Our goal is to 
develop a final rule that is acceptable to the organic 
community and consumers.
    The changes in the Federal Milk Marketing Order Program 
reforms the 60-year-old program by better reflecting current 
economic realities. It moves the dairy industry towards greater 
market orientation, while ensuring a regular, reliable supply 
of milk across the country.
    The final rule will enable producers to maximize returns, 
reduce marketing costs, and provide consumers with increased 
product values.
    Both of these rules have been put on the Internet. On the 
organic, we have received over 16,000 comments to-date. We are 
requesting $10.5 million in three efforts to expand the 
Pesticide Data Program.
    These efforts would provide a basic level of assurance 
regarding an abundant, available, and safe food supply that 
would facilitate the marketing of agricultural products.
    First, we need an additional $2.5 million to restore the 
funding to the levels of 1996. These funds will maintain 
statistic reliability by continuing contracts with four of our 
ten participating states.
    Second, we need $1.7 million to protect American 
agriculture from unnecessary losses of pesticide registrations. 
The Food quality Protection Act of 1996 requires EPA to review 
more than 9,000 tolerances within the next ten years.
    As you know, EPA will conduct their analysis using the 
maximum allowable usage rates, unless we have actually 
pesticide residue data.
    In other words, we will lose the availability of minor use 
pesticides once they lose their registration. Therefore, these 
funds are needed to enable a rapid response to EPA's request 
for actually residue data that could save registered use for 
minor use pesticides.
    Third, we are requesting $6.3 million to begin micro-
biological testing of fruits and vegetables as a part of the 
President's Food Safety Initiative. We will minimize the cost 
of collecting this information by utilizing PDP's existing 
sampling infrastructure, state laboratories, and data reporting 
capabilities.
    The budget includes an increase of $300,000 to expand 
international market news reporting. Agricultural marketing 
firms need market surveys conducted by AMS from these areas to 
take more timely advantage of market opportunities.
    AMS' budget also includes an increase of $500,000 for the 
National Organic Standards Programs. This request is critical 
because the proposed rule is ready to be finalized and 
implemented.
    We will recover the cost of the program through user fees 
and deposit it in the Treasury. The Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service has five program goals. They are: one, to 
safeguard American agriculture from foreign pests and disease; 
two, minimize production losses and exploiting market 
disruption from exotic pest disease; three, reduce losses from 
pest disease and wildlife; four, ensure humane care and 
treatment of regulated animals; and five, to develop safe and 
effective treatment of scientific methods to protect the health 
of American agriculture.
    In 1997, APHIS had major accomplishments in their domestic 
and international activities. At ports of entry, APHIS 
inspected 77 million international passengers and intercepted 
65,000 pests to protect the domestic producer from exotic pests 
and disease.
    They resolved unjustified trade barriers in 16 countries. 
These efforts were worth nearly $7 billion in exports to the 
U.S. agricultural commodities.
    They are the world leaders on regionalization, which is an 
effort to increase trade opportunities under GATT and NAFTA by 
recognizing pest and disease free zones within countries.
    In agriculture, the U.S. is a clear winner when these 
sanitary and phytosanitary standards are science-based and 
fair. On the domestic pests disease front, APHIS is down to 
having only 11 herds remaining under quarantine for brucellosis 
and expects complete eradication in calendar year 1999.
    For boll weevil, the new foundation loans of $40 million 
from the Farmers Loan Operation of the Farm Service Agency has 
accelerated eradication activity for cotton producers.
    The program provides significant environmental benefits 
through reducing the farm use of pesticides. These new funding 
arrangements allow APHIS to focus on what they do best, provide 
technical assistance.
    The 1999 budget request for APHIS is an example of good 
government. They are proposing to do more with less. In 1999, 
APHIS requests $417.8 million for Salaries and Expenses, a $9.9 
million decrease below that of 1998.
    Even so, APHIS proposes to spend $13 million more on high 
priority efforts, such as the $4.6 million increase in National 
Animal Health Monitoring Systems.
    These efforts will further safeguard American agriculture 
from foreign pests and disease. It will reduce production loss 
of an export marketing disruption from exotic pests and 
disease.
    These changes will help the Department meet its objective 
of significantly increasing exports, while meeting the World 
Trade Organization's sanitary and phytosanitary requirements.
    This shift can be accomplished because of past Agency 
program success, proposals to reinvent select programs, and 
proposals to encourage beneficiaries to share more in the 
program cost.
    I appreciate this opportunity to present the budget for the 
Marketing and Regulatory Programs mission area. The proposed 
funding amounts and sources of funding will provide a level of 
service needed by our customers, farmers, ranchers, 
agricultural marketing industry, consumers, and also taxpayers 
who should get a balanced budget for the first time in 30 
years.
    I encourage the committee to approve these proposals. We 
will be happy to answer any questions.
    [Clerk's Note.--Mr. Michael Dunn's written testimony 
appears on pages 245 through 265. Mr. Terry Medley's written 
testimony appears on pages 266 through 292. Mr. Enrique 
Figueroa's written testimony appears on pages 293 through 307. 
Mr. James Baker's written testimony appears on pages 308 
through 332. Biographical Sketches appear on pages 241 through 
244. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's budget 
justification appears on pages 333 through 427. The 
Agricultural Marketing Service's budget justification appears 
on pages 428 through 492. The Grain Inspection, Packers and 
Stockyards Administration's budget justification appears on 
pages 493 through 528.]

                               user fees

    Mr. Skeen.  Thank you, Mr. Dunn.
    I have to make the observation that once again the 
President's budget proposes user fees for some of your 
programs. There is $21.5 million in new user fees for GIPSA and 
$10 million for various APHIS user fees.
    In reviewing the USDA budget, it has come to my attention 
that this is a user-fee laden budget. The budget assumes that 
these user fees are going to be enacted, so funding increases 
are provided in WIC, the Food Safety Initiative and other 
programs.
    Have these user fees for APHIS and GIPSA been proposed in 
the past?
    Mr. Dunn.  Some of them have been proposed in the past, Mr. 
Chairman. That is correct.
    Mr. Skeen.  Which ones?
    Mr. Dunn.  The Packers and Stockyards Program and APHIS.
    Mr. Skeen.  And APHIS as well. How has that program worked 
for you? What kind of returns were you getting?
    Mr. Dunn.  For GIPSA, it never has been approved, as I 
recall.
    Mr. Skeen.  So, you did not convert them. You just proposed 
them.
    Mr. Dunn.  Our Agency today is about one-third appropriated 
and two-thirds user fees.
    Mr. Skeen.  So, you are operating on two-thirds user fees.
    Mr. Dunn.  Operating today.
    Mr. Skeen.  Today. How about APHIS?
    Mr. Medley.  Under the proposed user fees for APHIS, we are 
requesting additional authority to collect user fees in 5 
programs. Agricultural quarantine inspections, of course, is a 
major source of funding from existing user fees.
    One program, Animal Welfare, is projecting $3 million user 
fee collections. We currently collect licensing fees of a 
little under $900,000. These fees now go to the U.S. Treasury, 
not to the Agency where the costs are incurred for providing 
the service.
    Mr. Skeen.  So, you had in the past a system with user fee 
collections.
    Mr. Medley.  Only in the animal welfare program for the 5 
areas proposed for new fees in our 1999 budget request.
    Mr. Skeen.  I see. It was rather limited.
    Mr. Medley.  Yes.
    Mr. Skeen.  Well, when will the legislation to enact these 
new user fees be sent up for the authorizing committee's 
consideration?
    Mr. Dunn.  I will defer to Mr. Dewhurst for that answer, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Dewhurst.  All of the user fee proposals will be in one 
piece of legislation. We expect to get it up here, I hope, 
within two weeks.
    Mr. Skeen.  You had better get it up here, but I also hope 
that we can get it passed if you are going to rely on it.

                         organic certification

    Let us talk about the Agricultural Marketing Services. As 
you may be aware, Dr. Figueroa, the 1990 Farm Bill authorized 
the development of nationwide standards for organic 
certification.
    Last year, AMS testified that the rule was going to be 
finalized this spring. Finally, last December the proposed rule 
was published with a 60-day comment period.
    Then last month, on February 6th, Secretary Glickman 
announced that he had extended the comment period on the 
proposed rule for another 45 days.
    I realize that we do not want to do anything too hastily 
here, but what is the map-out now on this? Has AMS completed 
its review of the comments of the original comment period on 
the proposed organic certification rule?
    Mr. Figueroa.  Mr. Chairman, we have not.
    The comment period will end April 30th.
    Mr. Skeen.  April 30th.
    Mr. Figueroa.  Yes, of 1998. Secretary Glickman, on 
December 16th, established a target date of the beginning of 
1999 for us to publish a final rule. We have 16,000 comments as 
of yesterday.
    It is likely that the organic rule will receive comments 
somewhere in the neighborhood of 25,000 to 30,000. Given that 
volume, we may be pressed to meet that January 1999 date, but 
still, that is our target.
    Mr. Skeen.  It is going to take some time to review your 
comments, I gather, from what you are saying.
    Mr. Figueroa.  Yes, sir.
    Mr. Skeen.  You have not accumulated all of the data yet.
    Mr. Figueroa.  No, sir.
    It is also conditional, as Assistant Secretary Dunn said. 
It is critical that we receive the $500,000 because we will 
obviously need to have staff and resources to complete this.
    Mr. Skeen.  But you understand we are dealing with a moving 
target here. When will we get the final rule on organic 
standards? When will they be published?
    Mr. Figueroa.  Our target is the beginning of 1999. That is 
what we are operating under.
    Mr. Skeen.  1999.
    Mr. Figueroa.  January 1999.

                               screwworm

    Mr. Skeen.  Mr. Medley, it was a little over a year ago 
that I went down to Panama to visit with Ambassador Bill Hughes 
on the transfer of the screwworm project to Panama. Where are 
we in all of that effort? Have you done the privatization 
study?
    Mr. Medley.  Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    The privatization study was completed and shared with the 
Ambassador in Panama. With regard to facility construction, we 
anticipate starting the architectural and engineering part of 
the contract in 1999. We hope to have the facility completed 
and occupancy by 2002.
    Mr. Skeen.  Are we getting any co-sharing of funds from 
some of countries that will benefit from the program?
    Mr. Medley.  Panama has provided some funds for the Panama 
facility.
    Mr. Skeen.  Yes. They were going to donate a location.
    Mr. Medley.  Yes. They have also contributed financially.
    Mr. Skeen.  Financially.
    Mr. Medley.  Yes, Panama donated about $10 million for the 
facility.

                           wildlife services

    Mr. Skeen.  Very good. User fees finally struck.
    You are proposing to reduce the Wildlife Services budget 
and change the cost share basis for the States. What are the 
changes that you are going to make for cost sharing?
    Mr. Medley.  Mr. Chairman, we are seeking to go more to a 
50/50 cost share in those states that are not currently 
contributing a minimum of 50-percent.
    We plan to phase-in over three years for States where total 
Federal/cooperative program costs are less than $1 million and 
two years for all other States. Our objective is to have a more 
equitable distribution. We are trying to reduce the federal 
contribution in certain areas.

                               screwworm

    Mr. Skeen.  Could you get us a copy of the privatization 
study?
    Mr. Medley.  Yes. We will be more than happy to provide 
that to you.
    [The privatization study follows:]
    [Clerk's Note.--The study is too lengthy to print. A copy 
will be retained in committee files.]

                           wildlife services

    Mr. Skeen.  We appreciate that very much.
    You are proposing reintroduction of wolves. Is this an 
extension of your reintroduction efforts in the Yellowstone 
area into New Mexico and Arizona? Do they appear to have 
increased demand on APHIS resources.
    If that is the case, have you had to reduce your activities 
in other areas to make up for this effort?
    Mr. Medley.  We have not had to reduce our activities at 
this point.
    Mr. Skeen.  You never actually made any insertions.
    Mr. Medley.  In Minnesota, about $250,000 comes directly 
from our budget. Because of the increased wolf activity, we are 
fast approaching the point where we are not able to maintain 
the level of service necessary with our current funding.
    Mr. Skeen.  So, funds have been a restriction as far as 
enforcement of the program.
    Mr. Medley.  They have.
    Mr. Skeen.  Well, we would appreciate having a record of 
how that program is going.
    Mr. Medley.  We will definitely get it to you.
    [The information follows:]

                       Wolf Control in Minnesota

    In Minnesota, eastern timber wolf populations have grown to 
record levels and are expanding to other parts of the State and 
into previously wolf free areas of Wisconsin and Michigan as 
well. Two full-time APHIS biologists are located in Minnesota 
to handle wolf damage conflicts, but the expanding population 
is rapidly exceeding their ability to ensure an adequate level 
of control. APHIS estimates that a total of $350,000 will be 
required in FY 1999, including $10,000 to begin work in 
Wisconsin. There are no contributions from the Fish and 
Wildlife Service or the State of Minnesota towards this effort. 
The $250,000 which APHIS is currently directed by Congress to 
spend in Minnesota is the sole source of funding for wolf 
control efforts in this State.

    Mr. Skeen.  Ms. Kaptur.

                              karnal bunt

    Ms. Kaptur.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to welcome Secretary Dunn and all of the gentlemen 
from the USDA who are with us today. We have really had quite a 
set of hearings here already this month. They are really quite 
good ones actually.
    I have several questions related to the testimony and some 
of the back-up information that was submitted to us. The first 
concerns karnal bunt.
    I am concerned about farmers being compensated for their 
losses as a result of this. I am curious as to whether your 
budget submission includes a special account for this purpose, 
Mr. Medley.
    Mr. Medley. Our pest detection budget for 1998 contains $2 
million for management of a karnal bunt national survey.
    The funds for compensation are available through emergency 
funding from the Commodity Credit Corporation.
    We have about $10.8 million available for compensation for 
producers and seed companies who suffered losses in value for 
wheat seed and straw in the 1995-1996 crop season.
    Ms. Kaptur.  In the CCC?
    Mr. Medley.  Yes, it is a carry over account.
    Ms. Kaptur.  Now this is a District interest, but I have 
been contacted by a small grain dealer in our area, and I am 
sure other Members have the same situation, who suffered 
substantial economic hardship because his grain was quarantined 
for nine months, but then was found not to have karnal bunt.
    Does he qualify for compensation under the current Karnal 
Bunt Program?
    Mr. Medley. Under the current requirements he would not 
qualify for compensation. I believe that in this situation, the 
grain was found to have a spore that was similar to karnal 
bunt, but it was from rye grass.
    Once tests verified it was not karnal bunt, we were able to 
release the grain. We never actually placed that grain under 
the Emergency Declaration, which would be necessary to qualify 
for the compensation payment.
    Ms. Kaptur.  Now, is the problem that he is having in 
getting some kind of closure on this, a problem of the legal 
authority?
    Mr. Medley. Legal authority would be one consideration. The 
other consideration would be whether the Emergency Action 
Notice delayed your constituent from selling his grain. When he 
was able to sell it, the price was lower.
    He is comparing the price he got to the price that was 
available months earlier. So, we would have to see, first, if 
there is authority to make payments. Secondly, whether or not 
it was the emergency action which caused the losses.
    Ms. Kaptur.  All right. Now, how would he work with USDA on 
this problem?
    Mr. Medley.  You are correct in that we have had a number 
of other producers that have suffered losses.
    Unfortunately, under our current provisions and statutory 
authority, we do not have the ability to pay unless losses were 
sustained under an Emergency Declaration. This gives us the 
authority to pay indemnity or compensation.
    This is an area where, in the past, the Department has 
explored to determine if some type of private relief bill would 
be appropriate. We have also had some producers asking whether 
or not they can file a claim under our Torts Claim Act.
    Currently, our General Counsel's Office opinion is that 
these claims did not meet our requirements for payment.
    Ms. Kaptur.  It is my understanding, that was quarantined 
specifically because of karnal bunt; the concern that it might 
be.
    Mr. Medley.  Yes.
    Ms. Kaptur.  It was not his choice to have it quarantined. 
He wanted to sell it at that point. I guess I was very 
surprised to find that the law, you know, that he could not 
even get any redress of any kind. He suffered loss.
    You hate to go back to hit the NAFTA drum, but I am going 
to hit it again because this is just like the tomato people 
down in Florida.
    Here is another situation where one of our farmers, and 
many of them get hurt around the country, and we just ought to 
be more able to at least meet with them or figure out a way to 
redress some of their concerns.
    I would just ask you, Mr. Medley, if you could work with us 
to be fair to everyone in the country who should get some kind 
of quick turn around on this, so that they get answers and they 
can go on with their lives and their businesses.
    Mr. Medley.  We would be very pleased to work with these 
people. We realize that although we were able to save about a 
$5 billion market, there were losses suffered. We would want to 
properly address those who suffered losses.
    Ms. Kaptur.  Thank you. Thank you very much.

                         organic certification

    I wanted to ask you about the rule on organics, Dr. 
Figueroa. Some of our folks have said that the proposed rule is 
too weak and that in fact, it will disadvantage American 
producers in international markets. They believe that the rule 
should better adhere to industry norms and the recommendations 
of the National Organic Standards Board. How will your 
recommendation address their concerns?
    Mr. Figueroa.  Good afternoon. As you know, Congresswoman 
Kaptur, we are still in the comment period. We are, as I 
mentioned earlier, we received 16,000 comments. The comment 
period will end April 30th. Then we will analyze and evaluate 
all of the comments.
    Secretary Glickman committed himself in his February 6th 
press release to indicate that we will not release a final rule 
that could not be embraced by the organic industry nor the 
American consumer.
    We are taking all of these comments very seriously. I can 
say that I was in New Jersey last week and I spent ten hours 
receiving comments. It was clear that the vast majority of the 
individuals that offered testimony were clearly concerned about 
the weakness that you have just identified.
    We have also committed ourselves to allow for further 
public comment after the April 30th deadline. We will embark on 
that process as well.
    Ms. Kaptur.  You said the final rule will come forward 
when?
    Mr. Figueroa.  Our target date is January 1999.

                               screwworm

    Ms. Kaptur.  Thank you. I wanted to ask another question 
regarding APHIS. I understand that APHIS currently runs a 
facility related to screwworms in the Chiapas Region of Mexico.
    The proposal is that it be closed in the year 2004. I 
wonder if you might give us a little more detail about how many 
people are employed there and why it is proposed for closure?
    On pages 14 and 15 of your budget, it indicates that there 
have been prior labor disputes at that particular facility. I 
wonder if you might enlighten us a little bit about what is 
going on there? Then I have a final question related to this 
facility.
    Mr. Medley.  The projected closure of the Mexico facility 
and our movement to a Panama facility is consistent with our 
overall eradication plans and with our maintaining a barrier at 
the Darien Gap in Panama.
    This is a part of a sequential movement south, as we are 
successfully eradicating, to provide a permanent barrier 
against the screwworm reinfestation into the U.S.
    Phase-out of this production facility is scheduled for 2004 
to allow for a transition period, once we begin operations, 
hopefully, in 2002 in Panama. Also, there were some issues 
having to do with management and the union within the Mexico 
facility.
    Those issues have been resolved. We have been able to 
address the immediate concerns raised and to work out how the 
facility will be managed as it relates to the foreign nationals 
and the responsibilities inside of the facility.
    I believe that the joint U.S./Mexico screwworm commission 
has a little over 650 employees.
    Ms. Kaptur.  So, this is a significant presence in that 
very tender area of Mexico. I am deeply concerned about the 
people of Mexico.
    I have plenty to say about their government, but deeply 
concerned, particularly in the agricultural country side and 
about any destabilizing force in that area, certainly by the 
United States, I do not think would be viewed as a good sign.
    I realize the screwworm problem is a separate problem from 
a political problem, but nonetheless, it is the presence of the 
United States in that region. Are you coordinating this with 
the State Department so as to minimize any----
    Mr. Medley.  We are working with full concurrence and 
support of the Mexican Government.
    From a bio-security standpoint, having the facility located 
where the screwworm has been eradicated could jeopordize free 
status if there is an accident and this is why the Mexican 
Government also wants the facility to move south, as we are 
eradicating screwworm south through Central America.
    We work very closely with our counter-parts in Mexico. We 
make these decisions based upon long term program goals, as 
well as being very sensitive to the factors that you have 
identified.
    Ms. Kaptur.  What will happen to the people? First of all, 
what are the people in that facility doing? Are these 
scientists?
    Mr. Medley.  No, they are primarily technicians. There is a 
lot of work associated with growing the larvae and producing 
the flies that we released; the billions of flies that we 
released for this eradication effort.
    The majority of the employees working in the facility are 
technicians. These people are covered by union contracts. There 
have been reductions in employees as we have successfully 
eradicated screwworm and reduced the size of the program.
    Included in the union contract were specific requirements 
for what they must be paid, for severance pay, et cetera, when 
positions are eliminated.
    Ms. Kaptur.  When they were employed there, they knew that 
this would be a job that would not be there.
    Mr. Medley.  Yes, that is correct.
    Ms. Kaptur.  You are coordinating with the State Department 
then to minimize any negative impact in the area.
    Mr. Medley.  Yes, we have our Region VI office in Mexico 
working with the State Department.
    Ms. Kaptur.  All right. Mr. Chairman, I will hold my 
remaining questions for the second round. Thank you, Mr. 
Medley.
    Mr. Skeen.  Thank you, Ms. Kaptur.
    I am delighted with your interest in the screwworm program 
because the whole map-out for this was done back in the 1950s. 
I think what the Department has been doing is following that.
    That has been one of the most successful eradication 
programs I have known. Speaking as a livestock operator, I can 
tell you this. We used to spend about 60-percent of our time 
doctoring for screwworms back in the early days of the 1950s.
    Since that time, we have not had a case at all and no 
reinfestation. It has been very successful. I just had to get 
that in there.
    Ms. Kaptur.  I remember that from prior hearings, Mr. 
Chairman. I just did not realize that the facility we were 
closing was in Chiapas.
    Mr. Skeen.  Well, there is an awful lot of their own 
political unrest in that area that are creating problems. It 
has nothing to do with the plant. Mr. Serrano.
    Mr. Serrano.  Mr. Chairman, there is a senior Gentleman to 
my right here.
    Mr. Skeen.  I was going to let him collect his thoughts.
    Mr. Serrano.  I. See, I look like a good guy now.
    Mr. Skeen.  Are you going to talk or are you not? The clock 
is running.
    Mr. Serrano.  Yes, I am, sir.
    Mr. Skeen.  Okay, Mr. Serrano. It is all yours.

                    sanitary/phytosanitary standards

    Mr. Serrano.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me first thank all of you for being here today and for 
the work that you do on behalf of the folks in this country. I 
thank Mr. Dunn and Mr. Medley for finally allowing Serrano Ham 
to enter the country; no relation.
    I have a question on that though. I know that, for years 
the whole issue was tabu, you know, the idea. Then, there was a 
lot of press on the fact that this famous ham was not allowed 
into the country.
    What were the problems and how did you reach a conclusion 
that it is okay to do it now? As I understand it now, it is not 
all forms or all products that go under the headline of Serrano 
Ham, but just some.
    The reason I ask you that question, not really because of 
the last name, but I know that some people do want to know how 
those decisions are made; how you reached that point where it 
was a big no, no, and now it is okay.
    Mr. Medley.  The major reason for the change is that we 
were assured that entry of the product would not present a risk 
to our domestic livestock population. We were concerned about 
very serious communicable diseases of swine, primarily African 
Swine Fever and Classical Swine Fever better known as Hog 
Cholera.
    We put in place certain protocols against entry of any live 
animals, but we also have entry protocols for either cured or 
processed pork products. If they meet our requirements for 
safety, then they can be imported.
    Mr. Serrano.  But you are painting, I mean, while accepting 
it into the country, you are still painting kind of a scary 
picture, with your choice of words. There seems to still be 
some concern on your part regarding that entire area.
    Mr. Medley.  It is, Congressman, because currently the 
European Union is having a serious outbreak of Hog Cholera in 
various countries.
    With product and, perhaps, swine movement among the 
countries, the outbreak of Hog Cholera has spread to the 
Netherlands, Germany, and Portugal. We foresee receiving 
positive tests from Spain and we know the disease is in Italy.
    Because of these outbreaks, we are very concerned, and have 
very specific entry requirements. These requirements are aimed 
at allowing, trade under conditions that do not present a risk 
to our domestic pork industry.
    Mr. Serrano.  I understand. But see, that brings up another 
question. If for years this product was not acceptable as a 
product to be sold in this country, and now you are telling me 
that it is, you still did not tell me if it is all of it or 
some of it.
    Secondly, if there are no current outbreaks of cholera. Why 
was it unacceptable before. It is more dangerous now or at 
least that is how I see it.
    Mr. Medley.  There are actually two things that have 
occurred. One, is the ratification of GATT and the other is the 
requirement that the 1930 Tariff Act which prohibited us from 
even allowing entry of meat products from certain countries 
where they had exotic disease, be amended.
    Under that new procedure, we have regionalization, in which 
we are able to certify and accept products from free regions 
within the countries where there are disease problems. This is 
actually one of the major significant advantages that should 
work both with importing and exporting meat and poultry 
products.
    Similarly, if we have an isolated case or a major disease 
outbreak in the U.S. occurring in one area of one State, it 
would not impede commerce in other areas in that state that are 
free or in other States.
    So, there have been significant international rule changes 
over the last five years relating to trade and animal products.
    Mr. Serrano.  You bring up an interesting point in terms of 
outbreaks in this country. We always, of course, get a picture 
of what we think about everyone else or their products and so 
on. Do you know of instances where other farming governments 
have sat around the table, as we are now, concerned that 
something we are sending them is going to create a problem for 
them?
    Mr. Medley.  Yes, Congressman, it happens all the time. 
There are various areas, whether we are talking about our 
negotiations with Australia, Europe, or China where there are 
various products from the U.S. that are not allowed entry 
because of concerns about particular diseases present in the 
U.S.
    Mr. Serrano.  Such as?
    Mr. Medley.  For instance, in the area of poultry products, 
we look at concerns with certain poultry diseases. A year and a 
half ago, Russia cut off a $700 million export market because 
of their concern about six different poultry diseases.
    We are trying to gain market access in South Africa, and 
Australia with pork products. The concern over BlueTongue 
prevents our export of cattle to certain countries. Other 
diseases can impact our horse industry exports.
    There are a number of requirements that are imposed upon 
the U.S. because of diseases that our products or animals might 
have. In the animal area, there are 17 major diseases that 
concern most of the world. Fortunately, we do not have most of 
those diseases.
    Mr. Serrano.  Just one further concern; you know, this 
week, I am sure you could not have missed it on any of the 
major stations.
    There was a major debate on the House Floor about the 
political future of Puerto Rico. A part of what that debate 
showed was the lack of information that exists among House 
Members in terms of the relationship between Puerto Rico and 
the U.S.
    You always think that because you were born there that 
everybody knows what you know, but that is not a fact. Many 
people reacted in terms of dealing with a foreign country, if 
you will.
    I sounded very much on the Floor like they were talking 
about a foreign country. Should Puerto Rico be a state, an 
independent nation, or not?
    Even though we have the same Department of Agriculture 
covering Puerto Rico, sometimes we act like it is a foreign 
country, in terms of their tropical fruit coming into the 
country.
    Now, I am sure that is not in any way related to the 
relationship. Is it related to the fact that many of Puerto 
Rico's products are not naturally grown in the State.
    I mean, do Virginia apples go through the same scrutiny 
when moving over to Seattle? Although, probably Washington 
State would not want any Virginia apples; right?
    Do they go through the same scrutiny, say that mangos from 
my hometown, in Puerto Rico, go through in getting to New York?
    Mr. Medley.  In all of the States, territories, and 
possessions, APHIS applies the same standard across the board 
for domestic agriculture that we are protecting.
    We are very concerned about cholera in the Dominican 
Republic and in Haiti and the threat it poses to Puerto Rico. 
We have intensified inspections in Puerto Rico, as well as in 
New York, New Jersey, and Miami equally.
    In Puerto Rico, as with Hawaii, because of their tropical 
climates, there are identified significant quarantine pests 
that are in the fruits and vegetables that are not in the 
citrus producing areas on the mainland.
    We have a pre-departure inspection activity as a mechanism 
for identifying and safeguarding against pests in those areas 
from entering the U.S. mainland.
    Let me reassure you that our activities are designed to 
protect all domestic agriculture, which includes all 
territories, possessions, as well as States.
    Mr. Serrano.  Well, let me congratulate you, Mr. Medley. I 
have been asking this question in and out of Congress for a 
long time. No one has answered it as clearly and direct as you 
have.
    It is too bad a lot of other people do not get to hear your 
answer because that would alleviate a lot of concerns about the 
inspections and the treatment being based on the relationship 
rather than on the concerns of protecting our crops throughout 
the country. So, I thank you. I have no further questions, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Skeen.  Mr. Serrano. I will vary the format a little 
bit and ask Mr. Fazio next.

                 Qualified Through Verification Program

    Mr. Fazio.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome everybody. It 
is good to see you. There are a number of people I am getting 
to know in the capacity of Marketing and Regulatory Programs 
here. I appreciate the help I am receiving from those at the 
table and those on the first row.
    This relates to concerns that some of my growers, fresh 
fruit and vegetable growers, and some fresh cut product 
manufacturers have. I would like to ask about the Qualified 
Through Verification program.
    I understand that up to 60 requests are pending before the 
Agency for application to and certification from the program. I 
understand USDA has agreed to use the USDA shield on some of 
the products that my growers are involved with.
    There is concern among those whose applications are pending 
that this represents a competitive advantage to the few 
companies that are now qualified. I guess everybody wants to be 
in at the same time.
    So, my questions are, how many applications are pending? At 
what rate do you process these applications now with your 
available resources? I suppose, Mr. Dunn, perhaps I could go to 
you first. Then we will see who else may want to comment.
    Mr. Dunn.  What I will do, Mr. Fazio, is fill in a little 
time while Dr. Figueroa consults with staff on how many are 
actually on board.
    Mr. Fazio.  He is doing it as you speak.
    Mr. Dunn.  This is something that we have worked out with 
the producers. I was in consultation just the other evening 
with the Dean of the Agriculture School from U.C. Davis.
    We were talking about this program and how we could work 
with U.S. Davis to expand this program and be able to provide 
greater service to other folks. I think Dr. Figueroa now has 
the answer.
    Mr. Fazio.  That was really very good, Mr. Dunn.
    Mr. Dunn.  Dr. Figueroa certainly knows Davis, too, from 
his experience. He has touched down at Cornell to cover Mr. 
Walsh as well. So, he is well-settled before this committee.
    Mr. Figueroa.  Good afternoon, Mr. Congressman.
    The answer is pending, and I will provide you with the 
exact number, is somewhere in the neighborhood of between 40 
and 60 firms.
    We are moving as expeditiously as possible to get as many 
of these firms qualified. It is a function of the plans that 
each of the firms submit to us as to how quickly we can get 
those firms into the programs.
    The firms that are using the shield are very satisfied with 
it. That is probably indicative of the number of firms that 
want to join it.
    [The information follows:]

    Marketing and Regulatory Programs Agricultural Marketing Service

    There are five firms involving six production facilities 
that are in the Qualified Through Verification program, or QTV. 
Another eleven firms have submitted their proposed QTV plans 
for our review. We expect to have most of these approved and in 
the program before the end of the summer. In addition, some 30 
other firms have expressed interest in the QTV program but have 
not applied for acceptance.

    Mr. Fazio.  What does this mean to the consumer? I do not 
want this to sound like just something that is to convenience 
the industry. Describe for the committee, if you could, what it 
means to the consumer.
    Mr. Figueroa.  The program is not a program where 
certifying makes the product any safer. What the shield means 
to the consumer is that the USDA has certified that a firm used 
a HACCP Program to process the product.
    That during the process of that product, and meeting the 
HACCP requirements, it was produced in a manner that minimizes 
exposure to microbial contamination. That, in my judgment, is 
what the consumer sees in that seal.
    Mr. Fazio.  I understand there is a fairly significant 
inspection and verification fee involved here. Is this in any 
way a limitation on who can afford to participate? Does it in 
some way become an advantage for the larger producer over the 
smaller? Is there a way to sort that out over time?
    Mr. Figueroa.  I cannot give you the exact fee, Congressman 
Fazio, but I will provide that for you. I raised the same 
issue. As you know, I have been on board for four months.
    On a per package basis, the cost is minimal. As I 
understand it, it does not have much of an effect in the 
implementation of the program.
    [The information follows:]

    QTV is a voluntary, fee-for-service program. We have been 
pleased that firms of widely varying size, from the industry 
giants to relatively modest-sized regional suppliers, are 
participating. To recover the costs of the program, we charge 
about $1,800 for each audit, although that fee may vary 
slightly depending on the facility's location. Audit frequency 
is determined by the facility's ability to operate according to 
its approved HACCP plan.
    Initially, we conduct one unannounced audit every two 
weeks. Our experience has been that firms move relatively 
quickly to a reduced audit rate of once a month or once every 
two months with attendant reductions in their audit costs. The 
continuing decision by participating firms of very different 
sizes to stay with QTV, along with anecdotal evidence from 
these firms of cost savings from their heightened sensitivity 
to details of the production process, strongly suggest that QTV 
is a good value.

    Mr. Fazio.  So, it is kind of first-come, first-served. If 
you are more aware of the program and aggressive about it, you 
got in first and perhaps everybody else has had to wait maybe 
longer than was originally intended because the backlog has 
grown.
    Mr. Figueroa.  That is correct.
    Mr. Fazio.  Could you give us a time line as to how quickly 
you can work that backlog down? For example, if you were in 
that 40 to 60 applicant line that you outlined a minute ago, 
how would it be before you get the next 40 done and the next 20 
after that?
    Mr. Figueroa.  Congressman, I cannot give you a precise 
number. We are indeed working as we speak today with some firms 
that will be indeed in the program soon.
    As I mentioned earlier, it is a function of the firm's 
plans, how they submit them, and how complete they are. So, 
that is a key factor in the relative rate in which we can bring 
the firms into the program.
    Mr. Fazio.  So, you are trying to be user friendly, but not 
everybody is equally prepared when they walk in the door.
    Mr. Figueroa.  That is correct.
    Mr. Fazio.  I am reading between the lines.
    I hope you are doing everything you can to reach out to 
people to make sure that they provide you with the data you 
need and are able to be processed as quickly as possible so 
that we do not have any disparity in terms of who can more 
readily access the market.
    Mr. Figueroa.  I can assure you that we will work as 
expeditiously as possible with all the applicants.
    Mr. Fazio.  I am interested in the inter-relationship with 
the FDA on this. Your testimony indicates a memorandum of 
understanding with them. Since they have regulatory 
responsibility for the safety of produce, I am wondering how 
this fits into the inter-relationship between the two 
departments.
    Mr. Figueroa.  I want to restate that we are not marketing 
the program, if you will, as a food safety program. It is a 
program that minimizes the rate of contamination, if they 
adhere to the HACCP principles.
    In addition, as of today, the memorandum of understanding 
that you just referred to has not been signed off by the FDA. 
So, that is still pending.
    Mr. Fazio.  When it has been signed it would go into the 
Federal Register and sit before the public for comment and all 
the rest. Is that correct?
    Mr. Figueroa.  The memorandum itself will not, but the 
program itself will be fully recorded in the Federal Register, 
yes.
    Mr. Fazio.  Let me talk to you a bit about the Food Quality 
Protection Act; that bill that we were pleased to put through 
in the last Congress which did away with the outdated Delaney 
clause.
    Obviously, many of my growers and commodity groups are 
concerned about the implementation of it. EPA has been going 
through some debates, shall we say, with the affected commodity 
groups and the crops they grow over the risk cup.

                         Pesticide Data Program

    I think we have had minimal success so far in moving some 
products into the market that we need, but I remain hopeful. I 
notice you have requested additional funds for the Pesticide 
Data Program; trying to maintain sampling levels.
    Could you give us an update on how you see this program 
working, knowing that it is important to your constituent group 
and at the same time you do not have, obviously, the authority 
to implement all of it?
    What issues are rising to the surface? How do you see them 
getting resolved? Where does the Pesticide Data Program, which 
has had a checkered history with this committee, I think is 
fair to say, where does it sit at the moment?
    Mr. Figueroa.  There are two components to our request. One 
is for the Pesticide Data Program as we know it. There are $2 
million for restoring the funding levels that were in place for 
1996.
    The other component is on the rapid response. The first 
component, obviously, provides statistically reliable 
information to the EPA and for other agencies within the USDA 
for them to conduct research to find out what indeed is there. 
I think importantly it has allowed FAS to be able to negotiate 
and convey the information to our trading partners to ensure 
them and at least provide to them statistically reliable 
information actually on fruits and vegetables at the wholesale 
level.
    With respect to the rapid response, it is our intent that 
we can provide information to the EPA to facilitate their 
process of re-registering some 9,000 new pesticides they are 
responsible for doing. Our pesticide data program indeed will 
assist them in doing that in a more expeditious way.
    Mr. Fazio.  I am wondering if you or anyone else would want 
to comment on how that FQPA implementation is going. You 
probably would not, but I would like you to, if you would.
    Mr. Dunn.  Mr. Fazio, I thought Dr. Figueroa was doing 
quite well on his own there.
    Mr. Fazio.  Not to over-test him.
    Mr. Dunn.  As you are aware, we contract with ten different 
states which gives us a very good across the board sampling. 
What we intend to do is to expand on that infrastructure that 
we have out there with the PDP Program to get the additional 
information on the food born illnesses.
    To allow for data to be collected for the first time so 
that we would have a sampling of what may be out there. We feel 
the program presently is doing very well.
    I must say it is one of those programs where the majority 
of the money is a pass through to the states. It is a very good 
partnership that we have with the various states.
    I had an opportunity to tour the facility in California. I 
saw the spectrometer that was out there that we had purchased 
under that particular program and how well that was being 
utilized.
    I see it as a tremendous asset and something that works 
very well. You were not here earlier when I introduced our new 
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Dr. Siddiqui, whom I am sure you 
have had opportunities to work with in the past.
    We see this as a continuation of the partnership with the 
states that we are working with and an opportunity for all of 
us to collectively provide the information we need to ensure 
food safety.

                    Sanitary/Phytosanitary Standards

    Mr. Fazio.  I know there has been concern about our bill 
picking up work that perhaps another bill should for the EPA, 
but this is really essential agriculture as we struggled to 
implement the Food Quality Protection Act.
    I appreciated your reference to the trade issues. I wanted 
to get APHIS involved in this too because I was pleased by 
their testimony regarding that agency's involvement in 
resolving some of the sanitary, phytosanitary trade barriers.
    I think you both go into concerns that if we do not provide 
the proper data, we end up having people, unfortunately, use 
this sometimes in restraint of trade. I would be interested in 
the comments from either of the agencies on that score. Mr. 
Medley, maybe.
    Mr. Medley.  Congressman, I concur. With the WTO and 
implementation of GATT, agri-data becomes very crucial for the 
ability to certify our plant and animal health status.
    Without the ability to certify, we could have restrictions 
imposed that may or may not be scientifically justifiable, and 
we would have no way of countering those restrictions. This is 
an essential part of how we must operate today.
    It is one of the areas that we have proposed an increase to 
allow us to collect data and to be able to certify our animal 
and plant health status through surveillance, which is very 
necessary to compete in today's global environment.
    Mr. Fazio.  Dr. Figueroa.
    Mr. Figueroa.  If I just may add, my staff has indicatedto 
me that FAS has used the data, particularly in Japan and some of the 
Pacific Basin countries, in indicating to them exactly what we have 
found.
    In California, for example, the data has certainly 
facilitated trade and dissuaded purchasers of the notion that 
there are pesticides in the products that are coming out.
    Mr. Fazio.  Well, we know often this causes a boat load of 
produce to be undeliverable. It can be an absolute disaster to 
the grower, the processor, everybody in the chain.
    I just wonder if either of you have any way of estimating 
how often these are legitimate inquiries that need to be taken 
seriously for general public health, and the good of the 
trading relationship over time, versus how many are thrown up 
as an obvious effort to avoid taking responsibility for 
receiving a product.
    I see some people shaking their head recognizing that 
trade-off. Does anybody have any grounds for even a ballpark 
estimate?
    Mr. Figueroa.  I am not prepared to offer that number for 
you, Congressman. I will discuss it with my staff and if a 
number comes up, then we will provide that for you.
    Mr. Fazio.  Well, your staff is smiling, smirking, shaking 
their heads. I wonder how many of them might be able to give 
you some input while Mr. Medley gives me an estimate?
    Mr. Medley.  Congressman, I believe Mr. Figueroa will 
provide the information to you.
    Mr. Fazio.  Nobody wants to typify what is out there. But 
it is a problem, I think I could tell from looking around. This 
does happen on occasion and you are often called in to be the 
policeman. Whether they will take the authority or not is 
another question, but at least you are in a position. Could 
you, for the record, try to quantify? I realize these contexts 
can be informal to formal.
    Mr. Figueroa. To my knowledge, that information is not 
available.
    Mr. Fazio.  How often are you brought in, in these 
situations in general? How often do you find them warranted or 
an obvious effort to use these concerns as a way to avoid 
living up to the trade agreement?
    Mr. Figueroa.  I want to be clear. Are you specifically 
referring to pesticide residue issues or other issues beyond 
that?
    Mr. Fazio.  What you do certainly and anything else that is 
relevant that would be in your jurisdiction, and certainly Mr. 
Medley in his.
    Mr. Figueroa.  In the sanitary and phytosanitary arena?
    Mr. Fazio.  Yes.
    Mr. Dunn.  Certainly, Mr. Fazio, the sanitary and 
phytosanitary issues have come to the forefront with the event 
of GATT and NAFTA; the tearing down of the old tariff barriers. 
It is imperative that we base our SPS protocols upon sound 
science.
    That is the basis that we use. That is why it is so 
important for our budget request in there to ensure that we 
have a strong APHIS, a strong AMS, a strong GIPSA, for that 
matter, as well.
    Many times Mr. Baker ends up sending people over to foreign 
countries to certify the content and quality of grains as it is 
disputed.
    Mr. Fazio.  Do you want to comment, Mr. Baker on that?
    Mr. Baker.  Yes, I would. When the U.S. sells grain to a 
foreign country, we seek to ensure that the product is 
delivered as ordered. If, at the receiving end a discrepancy 
arises, we try to address it.
    I think that the area that you are leading into is probably 
more in the phytosanitary area than it is in the grain 
inspection area. This past year, GIPSA addressed approximately 
20 complaints from importers.
    We went and addressed them primarily on their soil. Our 
willingness to do that reflects well on the integrity of our 
system.
    Mr. Fazio.  Well, we have got to build confidence in this 
trading relationship. I am not just implying that we do not 
occasionally bear the burden.
    We have people who cut corners. We have unfortunate 
circumstances that we need to own up to. We spend a lot of time 
worrying about the failure to have enough money to compete in 
promotion of trade.
    We find increasingly our trade problems in this category. 
It is hard for Members of Congress to get a handle on this. One 
method, I hope, is adequately funding your budget, but the way 
I expect you to spend the money, of course, is to be aggressive 
in this area.
    Mr. Dunn.  Mr. Medley's statement for the record indicates 
APHIS assisted involving trade barriers worth nearly $7 billion 
in exports of U.S. agricultural commodities.
    Mr. Fazio.  I saw that.
    Mr. Dunn.  That we were able to keep in progress.
    Mr. Fazio.  It was 12-percent of the total agriculture.
    I noticed that APHIS oversees field testing of genetically-
engineered plant varieties.
    Mr. Medley.  Yes, APHIS does this work.
    Mr. Fazio.  There has been some concern about proposed EPA 
regulation in this area. You mentioned the need for education 
of our trading partners and safety and benefits of these new 
genetically-enhanced plant products.
    I think we all understand this is a way to put aside some 
of the pesticide concerns ultimately over time. Would you 
elaborate on these testing and educational functions? Who do 
you work with in this regard? What kind of progress are we 
making? Are there genetically-engineered plans?
    Mr. Medley.  For some time, Congressman, we have had a 
program called International Harmonization, where we have 
worked through various international regional organizations to 
promote harmonization in the oversight of these products.
    The oversight is based upon using sound biological 
principles and compatible scientific evaluation approaches. We 
coordinate reviews, for example, with one organization, the 
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris.
    The program now includes 29 of the most developed countries 
of the world. We have also worked in regional forums such as 
the North American Plant Protection Organization.
    We have demonstrated, through making our system 
transparent, that we have addressed the pertinent safety issues 
concerning these genetically-engineered products.
    The question you have raised about the plant pesticide rule 
is one issue we face quite often. That is, how do you properly 
define the scope of what should be included in an oversight 
system?
    Mr. Fazio.  We are working at that with EPA as we speak, I 
assume?
    Mr. Medley.  Yes, they are involved as well.

                              karnal bunt

    Mr. Fazio.  We will be very interested to know how that 
comes out. I think we generally would favor responsibility 
remaining where it is.
    Let me just, Mr. Chairman, ask my last question. I know you 
and Ms. Kaptur have raised the issues related to organic foods, 
but there are several losses from 1996 connected with the 
karnal bunt quarantine that remain pending.
    I have got some examples in Northern California, San 
Joaquin Valley and some, obviously, in the southern part ofthe 
state that was more immediately impacted. There seems to be a very long 
time here being taken to compensate growers and shippers for the losses 
they incurred.
    Of course, they were doing what they had to do making 
extreme sacrifices in cooperation with state and federal 
officials for the good of the industry, in general, and 
certainly our trade posture.
    It seems a little difficult to justify going this long 
before they got compensation. After all, these are people who 
are working every day in the business and cannot go with these 
losses on a perpetual basis.
    Is there a problem of having adequate money? Do we not 
provide the funds that are available? What is the slowdown?
    Mr. Dunn.  The issue really, Congressman, has been that 
since we first found the tilletia indica spores in March of 
1996, the program had 14 different regulatory changes. We have 
gone from a program design to initially compensate the original 
producer to including the handler, and the millers.
    It has been a program that has constantly evolved as the 
size, the biology and things have changed. That has been a part 
of the problem. A part of the problem has been getting a fixed 
formula for not only who should be compensated, but on what 
basis and at what level?
    We have in fact published the compensations for the 1995-
1996 crop season and will propose compensation for the 1996-
1997 crop season. Some payments have been made. Others are 
being made. I think that for the most part, we do have a system 
in place.
    As Congresswomen Kaptur pointed out, however, there do 
appear to be individuals who have suffered losses that 
currently are not being covered in any of these compensation 
schemes.
    We have committed to working with her office, your office, 
the Hill to try to address that. Currently, we are constrained 
because the authorities to pay compensation are limited unless 
certain factors have occurred.
    Clearly, it is in our best interest, the interest of 
American agriculture, to have industry producers willing to 
cooperate with us when we do have a problem, realizing that 
they will be fairly and fully compensated.
    Mr. Fazio.  Is that the problem; they have not been willing 
to cooperate with you? Is that why they have not been paid?
    Mr. Dunn.  No, that has not been the problem. It has been a 
matter of determining which would be paid, what would be the 
amount.
    Mr. Fazio.  We cannot pay anybody until we can determine 
who everybody is?
    Mr. Dunn.  We have made some payments.
    Mr. Fazio.  But there have been a number of people that 
have waited several years. I guess, they have not fallen into 
any of the easily-defined categories?
    Mr. Dunn.  The most difficult category, of course, was for 
the seed and straw compensation. We were easily, in terms of 
the initial producer. We then went to the millers and the 
handlers.
    Those were more difficult, but that has been established. 
It has taken some time. We did publish the final compensation 
provisions. We have made some payments. The farm service 
organizations are geared up to make the remainder.
    Mr. Fazio.  So, we are on the verge of solving this 
problem; is that what you are contending?
    Mr. Dunn.  Yes, sir, I am. Those that have fit under any of 
those conditions.
    Mr. Fazio.  If they have not fit under them, it is time to 
tell them the truth, that you are not going to get any 
compensation and not just string them along another year or 
two.
    Mr. Dunn.  We have said that to those individuals. In a 
number of cases, that has been appealed. We are looking at any 
way possible to make fair compensation to those that have 
suffered losses.
    Mr. Fazio.  Well, could you give the committee a report on 
this? I will be happy to yield to the Chairman, I personally 
would love to see the committee get an update on this because 
we do have constituent interest.
    [The information follows:]

[Pages 24 - 25--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


    Mr. Dunn.  We will provide that.
    Mr. Skeen.  Thank you. Mr. Nethercutt.

          transportation and sanitary/phytosanitary standards

    Mr. Nethercutt.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will stay 
within the five-minute rule. Gentlemen, thank you for your 
appearance here today.
    Producers and processors of my District have sustained 
large losses late last year due to the railroad's inability to 
deliver product for P480 contracts to Gulf Ports in a timely 
manner.
    The product was in the control of the railroad for about a 
month. Title does not transfer, you may know, on these 
contracts until the product is delivered along side ship.
    So, the processors were dealing with bills for dead freight 
by USDA between $5,000 and $9,000 per car, I am informed. The 
railroad did not deliver the goods and the products in a timely 
manner.
    My sense is the farmers ought to be held harmless for this 
problem that is outside of their control. It was not under 
their control to determine what the railroad's problems might 
be in terms of getting the product to where it ought to go.
    Due to the merger of railroads, many of the processing 
plants in my District have access to only one railroad. So, 
this has not allowed people there to use the value of 
competition. How are you addressing those problems for farmers 
and processors in my District, as well as many others around 
the country?
    The second question, I will ask these and then I have got 
to run. Reuter's came out with a story just yesterday. This is 
a quote, ``The APHIS Administrator said he was confident Brazil 
would soon reopen its market to U.S. milling grade wheat 
following a key vote last week by a regional plant protection 
group.
    ``Brazil has had a ban on imports of U.S. wheat since 1995 
because of concerns about the presence of TCK Smut, a fungus 
that is prevalent in some portions of the Pacific Northwest 
wheat crop.
    ``Last week, COSAVE, a regional plant protection group that 
includes Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Chile, and Argentina voted 
the TCK Smut should not be treated as a quarantine-significant 
test,'' he said.
    I just want to make a point before I have your answer, that 
this greatly affects the Pacific Northwest relative to China. 
China has been fighting with us on TCK Smut for years. It means 
dramatic consequences to us out west, especially with the price 
of wheat dropping.
    Maybe you can give us an update as to whether the progress 
you have made in the other areas would have some benefit to 
China and also what you might want to be able todo or can do 
with regard to this railroad problem.
    Mr. Dunn.  Mr. Nethercutt, if I may take a shot at the 
railroad problem. First of all, I believe that is under the PL 
480 Program, which would be in Foreign Agriculture Service, 
which unfortunately maybe I do not have jurisdiction over it, 
but we do have oversight over the transportation issues.
    I must say that Secretary Glickman has been extremely 
aggressive on the railroads and holding their feet to the fire. 
He has had me appear twice before the Service Transportation 
Board to point out problems, movement of grain; exactly the 
types of things that you were talking about where producers and 
grain handlers were the ones that got caught holding the bag.
    We will continue to keep their feet to the fire on that 
issue. I will let Mr. Medley answer for himself on his remarks.
    Mr. Medley.  We have been able to demonstrate to the 
Brazilian authorities that because of the unique climatic 
conditions that are necessary for this particular pathogen to 
survive, and also because of the entry conditions for wheat 
used for milling or for processing, that it would not present a 
significant risk to the Brazilian wheat industry.
    This assessment was reaffirmed by a regional plant health 
organization, which is the COSAVE Group that you referenced. 
They determined that our wheat did not present a significant 
risk. I did speak with my counterpart in Brazil this morning 
and he assured me that the issue had been resolved and they 
would be publishing very soon, regulations that at least 
provide the opportunity for the entry of U.S. wheat.
    I say opportunity because of other issues that we would 
have to address such as the grain that would be requested, 
competing with Canada, et cetera. It would allow entry. We 
should be able to use the same scientific basis for addressing 
the China issue.
    We should be able to export to China without presenting a 
significant risk. We will be carrying the same message as we 
continue these discussions with China. This action should help 
us and enhance our chances of establishing scientifically based 
criteria in China as well.
    Mr. Nethercutt.  Thank you very much for your time. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Skeen.  Thank you, Mr. Nethercutt. We will have 
adequate recognition of the rules. You all are doing very well. 
Mr. Latham.
    Mr. Latham.  No questions this round.

                          packer concentration

    Mr. Skeen.  Let us start the second round then.
    Mr. Baker, as you know, this subcommittee has been 
concerned with the packer concentration in the livestock 
industry. It has been the focus of inquiry here since at least 
1996.
    I read in your explanatory notes that you initiated an 
investigation involving the trade practices of major lamb 
slaughters. Would you tell us what prompted that investigation? 
Tell us what you found when you were looking into it during 
your investigation.
    Mr. Baker.  Let me start with the last question on lamb and 
what prompted it. Probably in the last five years, we have seen 
concentration have more of an effect on the lamb industry than 
any other commodity, from the standpoint of closing packing 
houses in different areas.
    There are presently seven packers that are still involved 
in major lamb----
    Mr. Skeen.  That would be my next question. Are there seven 
all together?
    Mr. Baker.  Seven of the major ones. In other words, they 
are still primarily lamb slaughter. We are looking at what 
influence procurement practices had on detrimental or unfair 
practices and contractual arrangements.
    A lot of the lambs are sold under contract arrangements. 
Ours is an extensive investigation primarily in the West, in 
California and the Colorado area. We were looking at the 
seller, plant and farm comparisons.
    In other words, it is an extensive investigation of the 
lamb market. It should be completed this year. On the 
concentration issue, we are very concerned about it. A major 
focus in our agency in the packers and stockyards program area 
has been concentration.
    We are reorganizing our Packers of Stockyards program to 
better address the complex entities that are involved in 
procuring livestock, meat, and poultry in this country.
    We presently have a major steer and heifer investigation in 
the Texas panhandle looking at all of the cattle that were 
marketed in that area. We have a pork investigation going on in 
the Mid-West looking at 11 major packing houses for pork.
    We are doing a poultry investigation in the southeast. 
These fact finding studies may show how concentration has 
affected the industry.
    Mr. Skeen.  The beef industry, as I understand it, has been 
consolidating for the long period of time that they have been 
in the business world. You are down to about, what, three to 
four major packers.
    Mr. Baker.  There are four major packers.
    Mr. Skeen.  Four major packers.
    Mr. Baker.  It is assumed that they control about 80-
percent of the steer and heifer kill in this country.
    Mr. Skeen.  How many of these operations also feed their 
own cattle or have stockyards?
    Mr. Baker.  None of them have stockyards as such. They have 
the feed lots. Three of the major four feed their cattle.
    Mr. Skeen.  Three out of the major four feed their own.
    Mr. Baker.  They feed about 4-percent of the cattle they 
kill; not all of the cattle, only about 4-percent.
    Mr. Skeen.  I was trying to get somebody to engage on just 
how concentrated this was also; what line of supply that they 
have and control out of that type of situation. They can play 
the game back and forth when the futures are up, or whatever. 
There is a possibility that the market can be manipulated.
    Mr. Baker.  Yes, sir. The work that we are doing is trying 
to discover if that is happening. That is why we are doing the 
investigations.
    Mr. Skeen.  Thank you.
    Mr. Baker.  We might talk a little bit about further 
concentration for just a minute. The feedlot--concentration is 
a big issue. It is not talked about much, but one percent of 
the feeders feed about 45-percent of the cattle.
    Mr. Skeen.  One-percent of the feeders feed 45-percent.
    Mr. Baker.  Of the cattle.
    Mr. Skeen.  That is pretty good monopoly.
    Mr. Baker.  That is a fact. When you hear about 
concentration, you just hear about it from the packers side.
    Mr. Skeen.  You do not want to identify all of them?
    Mr. Baker.  Well, I could, but I am not going to.
    Mr. Skeen.  I thought we would just walk around the room. I 
appreciate the response. It has been a real problematic 
situation. I know that you have been concerned with it.
    Mr. Baker.  We are trying to stay in the middle of it and 
have a focus in those areas.
    Mr. Skeen.  I thank you. Mr. Bonilla.

                               screwworm

    Mr. Bonilla.  Thank you, Chairman.
    Gentlemen, I want to start out with the subject that the 
Chairman brought up earlier, the screwworm situation. I come 
from the town where the dog was recently discovered with 
screwworms. I think this reaffirms the need to move the sterile 
fly lab to Panama.
    I know the Chairman has brought this up already. Could you 
tell me more specifically what the current schedule is? What is 
the current schedule for moving the plant to Panama? What kind 
of emergency plans do we have in place should we have the 
repeat of the labor problems this summer?
    Mr. Medley.  Congressman, the timetable is to have the 
plant in Panama operational by 2002, then to have complete 
transfer from Mexico by 2004. We are hopefulthat our response 
to the current labor unrest by identifying some of the specific 
problems and correcting those, will prevent a repeat of the labor 
disruption that occurred.
    Mr. Bonilla.  So, are you pretty confident of that, it 
sounds like.
    Mr. Medley.  Congressman, as confident as I can be sitting 
here in Washington.
    Mr. Bonilla.  That sounds good. I have always believed 
though in having a Plan B, if Plan A does not work.
    Mr. Medley.  Yes, one of the things we have constantly 
looked at is having modules where we could successfully produce 
the steriles necessary if there was a problem.
    That is something that we have spent considerable time 
evaluating. Our timetable for the new facility is such that we 
hope to be able to address the module issue.
    Mr. Bonilla.  We will keep an eye on that hopefully.
    Mr. Medley.  Yes, we will.
    Mr. Bonilla.  I want to move now to the boll weevil 
eradication program. In Texas, the total operating costs during 
fiscal year 1999 are estimated to be $120.6 million.
    With APHIS only proposing $4 million for the program this 
year, a heavy burden will be placed on producers. The 
Administration is advocating the use of FSA loans to offset the 
decrease in funding.
    The Texas Boll Weevil Foundation has estimated that $78.8 
million in loans will be needed to conduct the program. Is the 
Administration prepared to issue the amounts of loans necessary 
to operate the program?
    If it is perceived that the federal partnership in this 
program is backing away from the program, do you think there 
will be a reduction in producer participation?
    Mr. Dunn.  We will defer to Mr. Dewhurst as to the 
availability of the Farm Service Agency funding.
    Mr. Dewhurst.  Well, we have budgeted money in the Farm 
Service Agency for those loans. Frankly, I am not conversant 
enough in the numbers.
    We have budgeted about $30 million for new loans in fiscal 
year 1999. The $78 million figure is higher than what I had 
heard. The intent here was to provide enough loan money to do 
the job.

                           imported fire ant

    Mr. Bonilla.  Okay. I want to move now to another subject. 
It is not unique to Texas anymore, but the fire ant situation 
that we have down there. In fact, how far north, just before I 
have a specific question about that program, how far north have 
these guys gone already?
    It used to be that they were not even in South Texas. Now 
they have surpassed that by a long shot. Do you have 
information on that?
    Mr. Medley.  I will provide a map, Congressman. I know the 
range has expanded considerably.
    [The information follows:]

[Page 31--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


    Mr. Bonilla.  I can remember as a kid this was non-
existent, when I was growing up in the late 1950s, early 1960s. 
Now, you cannot even lay out in the grass and have a picnic or 
do anything.
    You have to watch your kids all the time because fire ants 
are almost demonic in the way they behave, as you are probably 
well-aware.
    Now, we are talking about damage estimates in the range of 
$300 million a year just to the Texas economy. Wildlife is not 
safe anymore. Livestock is affected by this problem. They have 
even shorted out electrical systems.
    In some cases, they have kept people from using their own 
backyards. My question is, what plans does APHIS have to 
continue eradication efforts on this pest? You have proposed 
elimination of the $1 million Fire Ant Program.
    You state that APHIS has not received any request for 
treatment programs, which is interesting considering it is 
something that is discussed quite a bit in my part of the 
country.
    You may have heard that it has been a big project on the 
other side of the Capitol with Senator Phil Gramm who talks 
about this quite a bit.
    I understand that this money is also used to enforce 
federal quarantine laws. Do you anticipate providing any 
support for this activity under another program if the requests 
do come up?
    Mr. Medley.  The problem, Congressman, is that we are 
unable to identify a suitable tool to allow us to effectively 
conduct an eradication program of a large scale on agricultural 
lands. That has been the major problem.
    What we are doing now is to identify, if we can, biological 
control agents that might be able to help us. There is some 
funding identified for research cooperative agreements to 
identify a potential way by which we could effectively treat 
the imported fire ant, if asked.
    Currently, we do not have an effective, efficient, and 
environmentally acceptable methodology for controlling the fire 
ant.
    Mr. Bonilla.  I know they are doing a lot of work, I 
believe, at Texas A&M on fire ants. I do not know if they are 
making any progress. It is a serious problem.

                           wildlife services

    I want to ask now about the Texas Wildlife Services 
Program. As you know, my Congressional District is a major 
sheep and goat production area. Funding levels have taken their 
toll on this program.
    There are several positions in Texas that have gone 
unfilled due to the lack of funding. I know some Members on the 
subcommittee have already asked about the funding levels.
    Specifically, I would like to know if this funding level 
will support filling three vacant supervisory training 
positions in Texas?
    Mr. Medley.  At the requested funding level, Congressman, 
it would not support those three positions.
    Mr. Bonilla.  Well, this is a great concern that I would 
have. I hope that even if the money is not there now, maybe we 
can work together on trying to make this happen because it is 
very important to a lot of those counties in West Texas. They 
are large wool and mohair producers.
    Mr. Medley.  Yes, we will work with you.
    Mr. Bonilla.  Gentlemen, I appreciate your time today. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Skeen.  Thank you, Mr. Bonilla. Ms. Kaptur.

                               screwworm

    Ms. Kaptur.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I wanted to go back to Mr. Medley, if I might. I wanted to 
ask in a District like mine of over 600,000 people, a loss of 
650 jobs anywhere is a big loss. I can only imagine what it 
would be like in a very impoverished area of the world.
    This morning, I met with some of the people from the U.N. 
Development Program. We have AID. We have the Foreign 
Agricultural Service. We have all kinds of Catholic 
ReliefServices; lots of groups that work around the world.
    Is USDA making an effort to see if perhaps alternative 
purposes; alternative uses can be designed. I have been told 
the building is not in that great a shape, but maybe starting a 
coop with some of those workers, since Agriculture is at the 
root of the unrest there. Has USDA tried to work with any other 
agencies to find out? I know that is not your job.
    Mr. Medley.  We would be more than happy, Congresswoman, to 
explore what can be done. I understand fully the impact on the 
area.
    Obviously with our budget remaining flat, if not 
decreasing, moving closer to the current eradication effort 
considerably reduces the cost overall of the program by not 
having to transport sterile flies from Chiapas to Panama.
    Mr. Dunn.  Ms. Kaptur, I have had considerable 
conversations with my counterpart in Mexico about reuse of that 
facility when we do phase out on it. He has since gone on to 
become the Secretary of Agriculture of Mexico.
    We have talked with Banc De Mexico about possibilities of 
how we could refurbish that building to use it for other uses. 
The Mexican Government is very actively involved in looking at 
what we could do, once we do a phase out.
    Ms. Kaptur.  I am glad to hear that. I understand the 
Government of Mexico owns the building. Is that correct? They 
own the building, the Government of Mexico, the property 
itself?
    Mr. Medley.  The U.S./Mexico screwworm commission owns the 
facility.
    Ms. Kaptur.  The commission should own the facility.
    Mr. Medley.  Yes, it does.
    Ms. Kaptur.  I was just thinking. I mean, I am not an 
expert in Chiapas. I will tell you this. Our community of 
Toledo has been trying to figure out a way to be helpful in 
Chiapas.
    We have not been successful. It is pretty hard to know who 
to relate to. If our goal is to help the peasants who live 
there, and I as one Member of this Congress is very interested 
in being a positive force to help those people survive under 
very difficult conditions.
    So, if there is some way that our office can be helpful in 
accessing some of these other resources through the committee's 
subcommittee, and other subcommittees that I serve on, if 
agriculture cannot be helpful, my heavens, agriculture is at 
the root of so much of the unrest there.
    Even though we are closing this facility and phasing it 
down, and I understand why. I want to take care of the 
screwworm. I do not want it to come back to Mr. Skeen's 
property up there in New Mexico.
    While we are there, my gosh, we have got a reason to be 
there. We have got some experience in the area. Maybe we can 
help those folks develop a coop in coffee-growing or pineapple 
or whatever else is raised down there. I have never been there.
    Mr. Dunn.  I am sure that, that is one of the best coffee 
regions of Mexico. We will take you up on that offer as we 
continue to explore ways and means in which we do the phase-out 
in an orderly manner.
    Ms. Kaptur.  I would, Mr. Dunn, recommend to you to speak 
with the U.N. Development Program, Mr. Gus Spade. They work all 
over the world, including New Mexico. There are lots of other 
resources that are outside your jurisdiction that might be able 
to be helpful.
    Mr. Dunn.  I was informed, Congresswoman Kaptur, that we 
have discussed trying to maybe look at rearing beneficial 
insects for bio-control organisms as a part of integrated pest 
management.
    Ms. Kaptur. So, I think that following up on what Assistant 
Secretary Dunn said, there are maybe some ways that we could 
look at other uses. This is extremely helpful because it 
normally does come down to resources to provide that.
     Again, we offer our help in any way that we can to aid you 
in your inquiry into this. I wanted to ask Mr. Baker, gosh, did 
anyone pick on you yet, this afternoon?
    Mr. Baker.  No.

                          gipsa reorganization

    Ms. Kaptur.  You are requesting an appropriation of $3 
million for one-time costs associated with a soon to be 
announced reorganization.
    Mr. Baker.  Yes.
    Ms. Kaptur.  Could you tell us a little more about that? 
What will the $3 million specifically pay for?
    Mr. Baker.  Primarily, the $3 million will pay for 
relocation costs associated with a reorganization of our 
Packers and Stockyards Program. We presently have 11 regional 
offices around the country. Our proposed reorganization would 
reduce that number to three major offices that will be beefed 
up with economists, legal personnel, and better resources to 
investigate the complex industry.
    So, we will have to move people from different parts of the 
country to these offices. That is what the $3 million is for. 
It is a one-time cost.
    Ms. Kaptur.  A one-time move. How will the reorganization 
benefit the concerns of this committee and others in this 
Congress about the anti-competitive practices?
    Mr. Baker.  It will help us better address concentration 
and anti-competitiveness. Under our reorganization, we are 
going to structure our organization so that we can more 
effectively address competition, trade practices, and financial 
practices. We are going to gear up with people and resources to 
do just that.
    Where we presently have 28-percent of our program staff in 
Washington, under the reorganization there will be only 20-
percent in Washington. We are going to move needed resources to 
the field.
    We are going to hire economists with Masters and Doctor's 
degrees to better look at the complex industry issues and 
structures. In other words, we need to re-tool to help us 
better address concentration issues.
    Ms. Kaptur.  In other words, you go from 11 offices to 3, 
as I understand it.
    Mr. Baker.  Yes.
    Ms. Kaptur.  Will there be any reductions in force 
associated with that?
    Mr. Baker.  No, in fact we have asked for 25 additional 
slots. We would also implement a resident agent concept for 
remote areas. People would work out of their homes.
    We feel like we can better serve the industry by doing 
this. We want to mirror what the industry has done. The 
industry has concentrated into the beef cattle segment, pork 
and poultry.
    We want to get right in those concentrated areas with our 
major offices so we can better address concentration.
    Ms. Kaptur.  Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Baker.  We need your help.
    Ms. Kaptur.  I am behind you 1,000 percent.

                   agricultural quarantine inspection

    I wanted to, again, ask Mr. Medley on a different subject 
on APHIS pests and diseases. Last year in a report entitled 
``Agricultural Inspection: Improvements Needed to Minimize 
Threat of Foreign Pests and Disease.''
    The GAO examined APHIS' effectiveness in minimizing risks 
to agriculture from pests and diseases entering the United 
States. They made several recommendations in that report. Could 
you summarize for the committee what improvements might have 
been made to-date as a result of that report and anything 
additional this committee might help you with in order to 
achieve the recommendations in that report?
    Mr. Medley.  A number of the areas that were identified in 
that report are addressed under our strategic plans.
    For instance, we had a pilot program to look at how to do 
more risk-based inspections rather than just a representative 
sample. We have completed the pilot and put into place the 
risk-based inspection approach.
    We have requested an increase in AQI appropriated, which 
funds inspections of people and agricultural products from 
Canada and Mexico. In the AQI user fee program, we have added 
additional detector dog teams.
    We have additional, new types of x-rayequipment. We have 
established a National Canine Training Center so that we have more 
teams in service. We consider all of this under our safeguarding 
concept.
    Under the concept, we are focused on three primary points. 
First, we have activities abroad; the pre-clearance activities 
to keep exotic pests and diseases on foreign soil. Our 
International Services unit has pre-clearance inspectors on six 
continents.
    Second, we have increased our activities at the first port 
of arrival, moving to more of a risk-based inspection system 
using more technology with the x-ray equipment and the detector 
dogs.
    The third area of our focus is infrastructure, domestic 
infrastructure. The ability to rapidly detect pests and 
diseases if they get through our borders so we can quickly 
contain and then eradicate.
    We have asked for increases to enhance our pest detection; 
this will help us in Florida deal with citrus canker which is 
widespread.
    I believe that with the safeguarding concept, we are fully 
responsive to the areas identified in that report.
    Ms. Kaptur.  Have you noted as a result of the increasing 
level of imports, a lot more insects, bacteria, fungi that your 
labs are having to analyze? If so, could you provide that to 
the committee in some way that I can understand it; especially 
past years compared to last year, this year?
    I mean, how does one look at this time horizon and explain 
to an audience, this is what is happening?
    [The information follows:]

                           PEST INTERCEPTIONS                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of Pest                   
             Fiscal Year                Interceptions    Percent Change 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995................................            53,000                --
1996................................            56,000               5.6
1997................................            65,000              16.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Medley.  We will provide you with that information. I 
think you will see increases in pest interceptions. Assistant 
Secretary Dunn reported that in 1997 we inspected 77 million 
international passengers. There were 65,000 pests intercepted.
    We anticipate that next year, we will have 85 million 
inspections of passengers, cargo, and conveyances. You can see 
that our inspections are increasing; the potential for 
prohibited material entering is also increasing. We can give 
you that type of information.
    Additional resources are needed to provide additional 
inspections. We are moving from the current system, which is 
based upon a percentage of product, to identifying the source 
of the product and the risk basis for an inspection. This will 
also help us prevent exotic pests and diseases from entering 
the country.
    Ms. Kaptur.  I think some of the samples get sent over to 
Vix Date over at Davis. I remember one witness telling us a 
couple of years ago they were so backed up, they could not get 
through the work really.
    Mr. Medley.  That is an excellent point. As we address our 
year 2000 compliance, we need to use technology for more rapid 
identification of intercepted pests at the entry points.
    Currently, we may have a situation where, unless it is very 
obvious, we may have to send it away for analysis. We feel that 
in using new technology, we have the ability for inspectors on-
line to make a positive identification. This is another way to 
use technology to help us.

                     qualified through verification

    Ms. Kaptur.  All right. My final question will be to Dr. 
Figueroa, on the pilot HACCP Program that you have been 
operating for five fresh cut fruits and vegetables in 
conjunction with the FDA.
    Could you tell us a little bit about how long you have been 
running that pilot and any key observations that you have made 
to-date?
    Mr. Figueroa.  I believe we have been operating that for 
two years.
    Ms. Kaptur.  Two years.
    Mr. Figueroa.  As Congressman Fazio asked me a little 
earlier, we have a waiting list of about 40 to 60 firms that 
want to also join the program. The firms that are currently 
using the program are very content with it. They are satisfied 
with it.
    That is, I think, the reason why we have these other 40 or 
60 firms that are in a queue to join the problem. The program 
certifies. It is qualified through verification.
    There is a seal that is put on the retail packs. So, the 
consumer knows that the USDA has qualified this product.
    Ms. Kaptur.  What does that say? I do not know that I have 
ever seen that.
    Mr. Figueroa.  The seal says, ``Qualified Through 
Verification'' in red and blue and it has the USDA shield on 
it. It is positioned in different areas in the retail packs, 
depending on what the product is.
    It is not a food safety program. It is a program that 
minimizes the rate of contamination of the firms that are 
following the HACCP Program that we verify.
    Ms. Kaptur.  Do you see this program as helping to reduce 
the incidents of food born illness in this country?
    Mr. Figueroa.  That is, as I understand it, the intent of 
HACCP, to minimize the points at which a product can be 
contaminated.
    Ms. Kaptur.  All right. I want to thank you gentlemen very 
much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Skeen.  Thank you. Mr. Latham.
    Mr. Latham.  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

                               user fees

    Mr. Baker, I see in the budget you have got $21.4 million 
in new user fees and are asking for an additional appropriation 
of $4 million to setup the user fees. Who are you going to 
charge? Who is going to pay for that?
    Mr. Baker.  Congressman, it is in two programs. Part of it 
is in our grain program. It is a shift of our standardization 
activities and methods development activities which are 
presently appropriated over to user fees.
    The customers that handle grain will be the ones to pay for 
that. Ultimately, the producer will pay for it, but the 
customer who handles the grain will be the one that has to pay.
    Mr. Latham.  So, you are saying there is going to be an 
assessment, say, per bushel of corn or something?
    Mr. Baker. We are looking at one program right now that 
would be an assessment per thousand bushels.
    Mr. Latham.  So, you do not know what it is yet.
    Mr. Baker.  Yes. Between 85 and 90 cents per thousand 
bushels.
    Mr. Latham.  To be charged at the point of delivery from 
the farmer?
    Mr. Baker.  It would be charged at the elevator, yes; the 
elevator handling grain. The other is our Packers and 
Stockyards Program, which is presently all appropriated. It 
would be shifted to licensing fees which would be paid by 
market operators, dealers, packing houses and people who handle 
products. The fees will probably range from somewhere in the 
low of $250 for the small operator to probably as high as 
$10,000.
    Mr. Latham.  How can you say how much money you are going 
to generate if you do not know what you are going to charge yet 
on either?
    Mr. Baker.  The projection that we have to offset it was 85 
to 90 cents per thousand bushels; 87 cents is exactly what we 
projected. The operators that we charge under the Packers and 
Stockyards Program, it will depend on the volume that they 
handle and the size. The small ones would be in the $250 range. 
The large one would be as high as $10,000.
    Mr. Latham.  Is this something you came up with?
    Mr. Baker.  That I came up with, no. I have only been here 
three years. It has been posed for the last five.
    Mr. Latham.  Did you propose this in the budget?
    Mr. Baker.  Yes, sir.
    Mr. Latham.  You did. OMB had nothing to do with it?
    Mr. Baker.  I am a team player. It is an effort of my 
agency to maximize and try to balance the budget. That is our 
proposal.
    Mr. Latham.  God bless you.

                          price differentials

    You gave a great team answer to that. I think I have asked 
everyone who has testified so far, and no one has had a good 
answer.
    One question I get a lot at home. The Chairman referred to 
it as far as the packer concentration. I think even more so I 
get more questions about the price differentials paid from some 
of the larger producers to the smaller producers.
    Could you give us an outline of what the criteria is that 
justifies a difference in price; say, for a pork producer?
    Mr. Baker.  I do not know if there is a criteria or not 
that justifies it. It is probably based on the fact that if I 
have a product that is better quality, I should receive a 
better price. Not all hogs are equal. If I have a leaner hog, I 
want a better price. That is the way the system ought to 
operate.
    The person who has the best hog ought to get the best 
money. I do not want to do anything to the system that changes 
that. You cannot pay everybody that has a hog the same money.
    It is perceived that the larger operators get the highest 
money. Our facts show that the ones with the best quality get 
the best money. That is where I will have to leave it. As far 
as an agenda, I do not have one.
    Mr. Latham.  There is no set criteria as far as you are 
concerned. I know you have heard this a lot.
    Mr. Baker.  Yes.
    Mr. Latham.  The smaller producers, you know, I have a lot 
of them in my District, or used to, and it is something you 
hear everywhere you go. Is there concern at USDA about this?
    Mr. Baker.  Yes, yes, there is concern. There is 
perception. However, there are some facts that back that up. If 
I can start a kill line in the morning at 7:00 a.m. with 2,000 
or 3,000 hogs there, chances are there is some premium paid for 
being able to do that. It is not significant. The significance 
is on the quality. We have seen hogs where the value of the hog 
is about $6 higher than another hog.
    Mr. Latham.  Is it somewhat on uniformity?
    Mr. Baker.  That is part of the quality.
    Mr. Latham.  Well, I mean, you can or you cannot. You could 
have uniform bad quality hogs too.
    Mr. Baker.  I have been there. If you have hogs that are 
over the prescribed weight, they are going to discount you. If 
they fit right in that prescribed weight, they are going to 
give you a premium.
    Mr. Latham.  If you do not have any criteria, how would you 
put forth a case that there is some unjustified differentials 
being paid?
    Mr. Baker.  At this time, we have not put forth that case 
that there are unjustified differentials. We are doing an 
investigation right now looking at the procurement of 6 million 
hogs in the mid-west with 11 packers, looking at prices paid, 
procurement, whether it was on a formal contract, how it was 
determined, and what effect it would have on the smaller 
business versus the large one. We will let you know what we 
find out.
    Mr. Latham.  When will that be available? Do you have any 
idea yet? There was some report, not too long ago, was it not?
    Mr. Baker.  It is a lot more extensive than we first 
thought when we undertook it. We thought we would have it out 
last fall. Hopefully, by mid-summer we will complete the first 
part of it.
    Mr. Latham.  I really look forward to that because no 
matter how it comes down, we want to know.
    Mr. Baker.  This will give us the best look that we have 
had at the pricing.
    Mr. Latham.  Sure; because it is a huge question.
    Mr. Baker.  That is true.
    Mr. Latham.  And people should know that either they are 
being penalized unjustly or the market is working one way or 
another.
    Mr. Baker. We hope to complete the first part of the report 
by mid-summer. We will provide the Committee with a copy when 
it is completed.
    Mr. Latham.  That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Skeen.  I want to thank you. I particularly want to 
thank you folks for your forbearance and for sharing with us 
your responsibilities.
    We have responsibilities to you that you be funded. We are 
going to do our best. This is the way the process works. I 
think it has proven to be very productive.
    It enhances our perspective of how well-staffed both of our 
agencies are and the intelligence, the hard work, and the 
dedication that comes through all of the time. The people that 
back you all up deserve some recognition and thanks too.
    So, we want to thank you for your presentations. If we can 
find some other way, other than user fees, maybe we will get 
you funded pretty soon. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Medley.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you on behalf 
of the men and women who make up Marketing and Regulatory 
Programs. We at USDA are very proud of them.
    We do thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for all 
of the support and help you have given us in the past.
    Mr. Skeen.  Thank you. We are adjourned.
    [Clerk's Note.--The following questions were submitted to 
be answered for the record.]

[Pages 41 - 1623--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


                                           Tuesday, March 17, 1998.

                   NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

                               WITNESSES

JAMES R. LYONS, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
PEARLIE S. REED, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
DANNY D. SELLS, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, 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
ANNE M. DUBEY, DIRECTOR, BUDGET PLANNING AND ANALYSIS DIVISION, NATURAL 
    RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
STEPHEN B. DEWHURST, BUDGET OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

    Mr. Skeen [presiding]. The committee will come to order and 
we're on the record.
    This afternoon we have the final Fiscal Year 1999 budget 
hearing. Like last year, the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service has the honor of being the last budget hearing. I don't 
know whether that's symptomatic or it just happens that way, 
but we like to save the best for the last.
    We have with us Jim Lyons the Under Secretary for Natural 
Resources and the Environment and Pearlie Reed, the new Chief 
of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. We just had Mr. 
Reed here a couple of weeks ago as the former Acting Assistant 
Secretary for Departmental Administration. You're a man on the 
move, if not the moon. [Laughter.]
    Pearlie, good to see you again.
    Mr. Lyons, I would ask you to introduce your team and make 
a brief opening statement and then we will begin the questions.

                Opening Remarks by Under Secretary Lyons

    Mr. Lyons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In the 
interest of time, and given the fact this is Chief Pearlie 
Reed's first opportunity to present his budget to the 
subcommittee, I will keep my remarks very, very brief, and 
allow Pearlie to----
    Mr. Skeen. We both appreciate it. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Lyons. Thank you very much. I will be very brief, then. 
Just a couple of quick points and introductions. I also want to 
introduce a new member of my staff, Craig Cox, who is the 
acting deputy under secretary for Conservation, who is behind 
me.
    Mr. Skeen. We're glad to have you here. Welcome.
    Mr. Lyons. He worked diligently over in NRCS in helping to 
put together the Geography of Hope, and other initiatives, 
under Paul Johnson and Pearlie's leadership. And I also want to 
introduce Danny Sells who is Pearlie's Associate Chief----
    Mr. Skeen. Welcome.
    Mr. Lyons [continuing]. Who, of course, worked with you and 
the committee and other Members in his capacity in heading up 
the legislative affairs division at NRCS.
    Mr. Chairman, the budget we present to you today, I think, 
is a complete and comprehensive effort to try and implement the 
conservation programs of the 1996 farm bill, to continue the 
progress we made in the conservation arena over the years and, 
I think, to fill out the commitments that we've made to the 
American people to help promote good land stewardship and 
conservation across the private landscape. We're making 
tremendous gains in the conservation arena, both with regard to 
our work on crop lands, as well as our work with the grazing 
community through things like the Grazing Lands Conservation 
Initiative, and other initiatives that you're very well aware 
of.
    Last year, in our discussions with the committee, a number 
of issues and questions were raised about certain programs and 
activities. In this previous year, we've attempted to respond 
to questions specifically related to programs like the Urban 
Resource Partnership Program, our efforts to work to protect 
salmon habitat, as well as the administration's initiative 
under American Heritage Rivers. And I hope those questions were 
answered to your satisfaction.
    In addition, I know a number of questions were raised with 
regard to operations of the RC&D program. And, in fact, we had 
a letter from you, dated January 23, in which you sought 
additional information concerning how we were going to operate 
the RC&D program.
    What I'd like to do, Mr. Chairman, is provide that letter 
to you today, in response to the inquiry, and I understand that 
some discussions have already occurred with staff.
    Mr. Skeen. We'll have that put in the record.
    [The information follows:]

[Pages 531 - 535--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


    Mr. Lyons. Very good, and I also have a copy for ranking 
member Marcy Kaptur.
    In addition, I just want to make note, Mr. Chairman, that 
today, looking ahead with the RC&D program, Secretary Glickman 
is announcing 25 new RC&Ds--a very successful part of the 
conservation portfolio administered by NRCS--and a number of 
those RC&Ds are in States of your colleagues and, of course, 
we've gone ahead and notified them of this recent announcement. 
Pearlie can get into greater detail with regard to that.
    Let me just say, in summary, Mr. Chairman, that I think 
it's an exciting time in the conservation arena. We are working 
very closely with others in the Department, others within the 
Administration, to further our conservation efforts. Most 
recently, Bob Perciasepe, who is the assistant administrator 
for water at EPA, and I co-chaired the President's Clean Water 
Initiative and put together a plan for addressing clean water 
concerns nationwide that I think puts renewed focus on the 
value of good land stewardship and voluntary approaches to 
addressing non-point-source pollution problems nationwide. And 
if we have not done so, we will be glad to, at some point in 
time, brief you and the staff with regard to the critical role 
that NRCS will play in the context of that overall strategy.
    We are making great strides, and I think we have a budget 
that helps, in many respects, in some ways we probably need 
your help to further our efforts, and I'm sure we'll get a 
chance to talk about that in greater detail.
    I'm personally excited to have Pearlie Reed back to the 
Agency. Pearlie was, of course, Paul Johnson's right-hand man 
and did a tremendous job in helping move forward with the 
progress that's been made in moving from the Soil Conservation 
Service to NRCS, and we look forward to his return and his 
continued outstanding leadership as chief of NRCS. And with 
that, I'll turn things over to Pearlie.

                      Opening Remarks by Mr. Reed

    Mr. Reed. Thank you, Jim. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Skeen. You're a man of many talents. We're eagerly 
awaiting to hear from you.
    Mr. Reed. Okay. I will, too, be equally brief.
    Mr. Skeen. We'll be equally pleased. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Reed. Okay, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be back home in 
the NRCS. You have my prepared statement and supporting budget 
materials. As you know, I have spent the past 15 months or so 
working as the Assistant Secretary for Administration for 
Secretary Glickman.
    One of the many things that I learned from Mr. Glickman is 
the importance of the Congress. The Secretary would remind us 
quite frequently--those of us who worked directly for him--that 
we needed to do a better job working with the Congress. In 
fact, he frequently reminded us that Article 1, Section 1, of 
the Constitution of the United States starts with, ``all 
legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the 
Congress of the United States.''
    Clearly, I see one of my jobs, and a personal priority for 
me, is to be responsive to the Congress in general, but to this 
Committee and you, in particular. My priorities are yet to be 
fully established, but I can assure you that my priorities 
collectively will focus on getting things done.
    As an example, many great conservationists have preceded me 
in this job. I plan to take the best their administrations 
brought to the NRCS and use it to make the conservation program 
more efficient, more effective, more accountable. This means 
that our science, our technology, our management instruments, 
must be deployed in such a way that we relieve our customers 
and employees of the many bureaucratic burdens that provide no 
utility.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to stop and throw it back 
to Mr. Lyons and we would be happy to take any questions you 
might have.
    [Clerk's Note.--Mr. James Lyon's written testimony appears 
on pages 723 through 754. Mr. Pearlie Reed's written testimony 
appears on pages 755 through 760 Biographical sketches appear 
on pages 719 through 722. The Natural Resources Conservation 
Service's budget justification appears on pages 761 through 
884.]
    Mr. Skeen. Thank you, Pearlie.
    Do you have any other statements?
    Mr. Lyons. No, sir. I was just going to make sure that, for 
the record, I had a chance to introduce Larry Clark with NRCS; 
of course, Steve Dewhurst with the Department, who will answer 
all your questions.
    Mr. Skeen. He has for some time.
    Mr. Lyons. I know; he takes care of mine.
    And Anne Dubey with our budget shop at NRCS.

            accountability on conservation operations funds

    Mr. Skeen. Welcome to both, and Steve, it's always good to 
see you. I believe there's always an everlasting person who 
knows it all, hears it all, and says very little. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Dewhurst. Thank you.
    Mr. Skeen. Secretary Lyons, this subcommittee has expressed 
to you, I think both publicly and through last year's bill and 
report, that our concern about the accountability of the funds 
appropriated to the NRCS. Specifically, in last year's report 
we directed that NRCS enhance its accountability by tracking 
the activities and conservation operations funds, how they're 
being spent, and presenting a more detailed budget 
justification when it submits its Fiscal Year 1999 request. 
What have you done to improve that record of accountability?
    Mr. Lyons. Mr. Chairman, a number of things are underway in 
trying to improve accountability at NRCS and, if I could, I 
will describe some of the current efforts that we have 
underway. We have a team that's about 3 months away from 
providing the NRCS leadership with options for installing a CTA 
workload measurement system to look at how we track 
conservation technical assistance.
    Mr. Skeen. How long has this been in existence, the group?
    Mr. Lyons. I don't know. How long has it been? Okay. Since 
last November.
    Mr. Skeen. Last November.
    Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Skeen. Please excuse the interruption.
    Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir. That team is looking at mechanisms for 
measuring time and costs of core processes or activities, the 
things we do on the ground, to develop a statistically-reliable 
mechanism of nationally measuring our performance in providing 
conservation technical assistance, a sampling framework 
together, dated to monitor our activities, and using that 
information to improve management of programs and the 
allocation of funds, so that overall we can do a better job of 
tracking where moneys are allocated in the technical assistance 
work that we do.
    Similarly, we are working in collecting actual time costs 
for the role we play in CCC-funded programs, and we will 
analyze program costs and measure trends in those costs, 
particularly as they relate to administrative overhead and 
activities that are reimbursable under existing program 
authorities.
    So I think we are moving forward in a number of ways so we 
can demonstrate accountability and also do a better job of 
monitoring our real-time investments so we can report back to 
you and, of course, the American taxpayers with regard to how 
we're spending all our money.
    Mr. Skeen. Have you made a report on this?
    Mr. Lyons. Larry, do you want--I think a few months away 
from a complete report.
    Mr. Skeen. Give us some idea of time frame, if you would.
    Mr. Clark. Mr. Chairman, hopefully by the end of the Fiscal 
Year we'll be in a position to send up to the Committee a full 
report on what the team has established.
    Mr. Skeen. Have you found any abuse or misuse of the funds 
in your report?
    Mr. Clark. No. One of the items that we've looked at, for 
example, in the area of the cost of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation programs that we administer, those programs are 
running, in terms of their costs, somewhat higher than we have 
estimated. We have our field office staff maintaining daily 
logs with times, so we're getting a pretty accurate indication 
of what those programs are really costing us.
    That didn't surprise us a whole lot, though, that the real-
cost figures would be higher than what we had estimated because 
we knew we were being conservative.
    Mr. Skeen. You haven't found any barnburners?
    Mr. Clark. No, sir.

                  american heritage rivers initiative

    Mr. Skeen. Let's go the American Heritage Rivers 
Initiative, the homepage in that particular initiative was 
mentioned in the USDA and there are several examples of what a 
Heritage River designation could mean to a community and the 
benefits that would be available. In particular, NRCS is 
mentioned in every example as an agency that would be able to 
provide services to an area when it receives a Heritage 
designation. Does this mean that existing NRCS programs are not 
adequately serving the public and could only offer their 
services upon a river's designation?
    Mr. Lyons. No, sir, it's not intended to mean that at all. 
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative is really an attempt to 
bring focus to a valuable resource and better facilitate the 
application of NRCS and other Federal programs to the needs of 
the community that nominates a river for Heritage designation.
    I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about what the 
American Heritage Rivers program is about. Really, it is an 
effort to better serve the American public and for 
thosecommunities that seek to nominate rivers or river segments for 
consideration in American Heritage Rivers, we believe we can more 
efficiently, through better coordination and collaboration, deliver the 
services that we deliver, and, hopefully, help the community realize 
their goals and their expectations for the river systems that are 
included in the Heritage program.
    Mr. Skeen. There's been a lot of conversation about this 
particular program, and a lot of disinformation, I think, as 
well as the responses to it have been kind of lukewarm. If a 
river is designated under this initiative, does that mean NRCS 
funding would be reprogrammed to serve the Heritage area, and, 
if so, under what authority would this occur?
    Mr. Lyons. We believe we can operate under existing 
legislative authorities.
    Mr. Skeen. You don't have a line item, then, or anything of 
that kind as far as fees or appropriations?
    Mr. Lyons. I don't believe that's anticipated. In 1997, for 
example, Mr. Chairman, we provided about $94,000 of staff time 
assisting with design of the initiative and then 60 percent of 
that came from Conservation Operations, 40 percent from the 
Watershed Surveys and Planning account. We didn't anticipate a 
specific line item.
    Mr. Skeen. So you just handle it out of existing funds?
    Mr. Lyons. That's correct. And, again, in 1998, we project 
about $225,000 would be allocated to the initiative.

                               user fees

    Mr. Skeen. Let's talk about user fees. Under the USDA's 
budget, it assumes the enactment of several user fees, and NRCS 
has proposed $10 million in user fees. Unfortunately, I could 
not identify whom exactly you would charge a fee to, or what 
exactly you would charge a fee for, since you devoted all of 
one sentence in your testimony to the user fee proposal.
    Mr. Lyons. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to let Mr. Dewhurst, who 
has become an expert on user fees----
    Mr. Skeen. We're all becoming experts on user fees. It 
seems to be the answer for it: If you don't have the money, 
we're going to set up user fees. But, I don't know. Steve, go 
ahead. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Dewhurst. I think we've had this discussion.
    Mr. Skeen. I believe so, but let's hear it one more time.
    Mr. Dewhurst. Okay, sir.
    Mr. Skeen. Maybe tune the fiddle a little better. 
[Laughter.]
    Mr. Dewhurst. The first thing you usually ask me is when 
you're going to get the legislation, and my answer is: It has 
not yet been submitted to the Congress but will be in the very 
near future.
    We have in the budget, as you said, a series of user fee 
proposals, and two of those proposals affect the Farm Service 
Agency and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Each of 
those proposals anticipates about $10 million in user fees. 
Each of those proposals anticipates that those agencies would 
charge for some services they provide which are beyond what 
they would normally do for the public at-large, places where 
there is a specific beneficiary who is going to use the 
information, we develop, for a profit, or for some 
developmental activity that's not a direct part of our program. 
So, our intention is not necessarily to charge farmers for 
services, but we will charge developers, we will charge 
insurance companies, we will charge others who use our data for 
their own purposes.
    Mr. Skeen. What about municipalities?
    Mr. Dewhurst. That's possible.
    Mr. Skeen. Or other political entities?
    Mr. Dewhurst. That's possible to the extent they're using 
our services and our information for a project of their own 
that is not of a particular national interest.
    Mr. Skeen. Have you got a definition for those types of 
services?
    Mr. Dewhurst. Some are where you have a development. You're 
building a shopping center----
    Mr. Skeen. It depends on the location or whatever is going 
to go on in that particular area, would it not?
    Mr. Dewhurst. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Skeen. But the results are municipalities or 
subdivisions, a political subdivision, could be assessed user 
fees?
    Mr. Dewhurst. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Skeen. Now I'm assuming that it would depend on what 
they're paying for, as well. Or what kind of program each one 
of these Heritage river situations that occur, could be vastly 
different from one to another.
    Mr. Dewhurst. Yes.
    Mr. Skeen. Depending on the location.
    Mr. Dewhurst. It depends on the location and the nature of 
the project that's being carried out.
    Mr. Skeen. Because that's one thing that bothers us in the 
western parts of the United States, the water situation is a 
very sensitive one, and we think we've got a Heritage river 
just because it flows, and not often. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Dewhurst. It's true.
    Mr. Skeen. A wash. A ``wash'' they call it.
    Are you about ready, Ms. Kaptur?
    Mr. Fazio, why don't you take off first.

                conservation reserve enhancement program

    Mr. Fazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur. 
I'll ask a couple and then I'll hold for the second round, if 
need be.
    First of all, welcome, everybody. It's good to see you.
    The Conservation Reserve Program is something, you know, 
Mr. Walsh and I have taken an interest in, hopefully in concert 
with the Department, to try to re-orient, shall I say, some of 
the priorities that have traditionally been funded, to talk 
about the opportunity to increase State participation in the 
program, a number of State officials are now in the process of 
developing initial Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 
proposals. I wonder if you could give us an update as to how 
we're doing in that regard, how many states have submitted 
them, whether we have sufficient acreage left in the existing 
CRP program to accommodate requests? And I might have a couple 
of specific questions about certain States, but I'd just like 
to get an overview and I'd be happy to yield to whoever can 
help me with this.
    Mr. Lyons. Congressman, what I'd like to do is yield to 
Larry Clark to give you the details, but let me just say that 
from the standpoint of the CRP program and the direction we've 
been headed, I think overall the environmental benefits 
associated with the program have been enhanced considerably 
with some of the policy changes and program changes that have 
been put in place in recent years. The use of an environmental 
benefits index which incorporates concern for soil erosion, 
water quality, and wildlife habitat, as a basis for evaluating 
bids, I think has been highly successful.
    In addition, we've used CRP to initiate a Buffer Initiative 
which is going to be critically important whether there's water 
in the stream or not, in protecting riparians and water quality 
throughout the United States with a goal of enrolling two 
million miles in this buffer initiative by the year 2002.
    And then through the enhancement program, the so-called 
CREP program, we have been able, similarly, to assist States 
who have been able to provide matching funds to further enhance 
the use of the program to achieve specific goals.
    We announced, for example, the first program in Maryland 
which is going to be critically important to the State's 
ability to deal with water quality concerns as they relate to 
issues such as pfisteria, which had a tremendous impact on the 
State.
    We have announced other programs and have programs pending 
in the Northwest, in Oregon and Washington, to deal with 
concerns for water quality, and watershed health that they have 
in that part of the country. But let me have Larry offer you 
the states and give you an idea of specifically where we are.
    Mr. Clark. Mr. Fazio, the Maryland CREP, as you know, is 
one that was endorsed some time ago. The others that we have 
on-line are New York--New York State is working on 
one,primarily in the New York City watershed area--the States of 
Washington, Oregon and Illinois.
    In terms of the acres that are available, we have worked 
with the Farm Service Agency and set-aside sufficient acres in 
the Conservation Reserve Program to accommodate the additional 
enrollment that would occur as a result of bringing in new 
CREPs.
    Mr. Fazio. But we have five, I guess, at the moment, you 
mentioned four plus the Maryland which has been highly 
publicized, of course, back here. How many other States do you 
think are likely to get their programs in order and submitted 
to you? And what would happen to them--is there any deadline in 
the process here that we ought to put the State officials on 
notice about, in terms of missing the boat for this year or for 
the next sign-up or however you want to analyze it?
    Mr. Clark. As long as there are, annually, acres coming in 
and out of the Conservation Reserve Program, we should be able 
to manage the program in such a way that we can accommodate the 
new proposals coming on-line. I would also add that there is 
CREP in the State of Minnesota that I omitted from the list.
    Mr. Fazio. And most of these attempt to do what? How would 
you typify what the State CREPs are really focusing on? Are 
they going in the direction of the buffer strip in addition to 
what you're trying to do nationally? And how does that 
interrelate? Do you double-count this? I mean, do you count 
this as part of your how-many-mile initiative or is it in 
addition to what the States are doing?
    Mr. Dewhurst. Yes, there may be some double-counting in 
that we do take a credit for a buffer, for instance, if it's 
part of a CREP. The Maryland proposal, for example, included a 
tremendous amount of buffer effort. The ones that we're seeing 
coming out of the Northwest, Oregon and Washington, also focus 
a great deal on salmon habitat and working there with riparian 
vegetation, as well.
    They do compliment the ongoing CRP. The great advantage to 
them, of course, is the fact that they allow us to partner with 
State investments to extend the conservation investment at the 
local level.
    Mr. Fazio. Do we find most of these States putting some 
money up as well? I mean, is there a tax break or a payment for 
partial-taking of use or reduction in development rights or 
something? I mean, could you describe how these typically 
interact?
    Mr. Lyons. Well, the CREP proposals, I believe, require 
that the State put up a certain amount of money as the basis to 
accept a proposal and, in fact, with Maryland and Minnesota, 
those funds have been provided, I believe the Washington 
legislature is looking at a proposal that would support their 
application. So, as Larry says, it affords us an opportunity to 
partner, it also affords us an opportunity to tailor a reserve 
program to meet the specific needs of the State.
    Maryland being the example I'm most familiar with, living 
there, and that is primarily focused on water quality concerns 
in the Chesapeake Bay. So it clearly is an enhancement. The New 
York City watershed would be another good example; there we've 
worked for years with dairy operators, primarily, in the 
Catskills and other regions in New York State. And in this 
proposal, we'll enhance our ability to put buffers in place and 
reduce the impacts of their operations on water quality.
    Mr. Fazio. Do you look at the State applications in any 
detail or do you just basically accept them as a step in the 
right direction? Do you try to make distinctions about the 
quality of what they're proposing?
    Mr. Lyons. Well, I'm going to preface this, Congressman, by 
first of all acknowledging that technically, FSA administers, 
of course, the CRP program, so they are most directly involved. 
Park Shackleford, my colleague and a former colleague from here 
on the Hill, is responsible for that review. We work 
cooperatively with them, but there's lots of give-and-take and 
discussion to make sure that only authorized activities are 
going to be paid for and to ensure that the CREP proposal 
enhances ongoing conservation activities in that particular 
State.

                              rental rates

    Mr. Fazio. You know, we've had some discussions about 
rental rates and how that affects one part of the country to 
another. Do you have sufficient flexibility under your program 
to deal with those kinds of issues?
    Mr. Lyons. Well, not focusing, myself, in on the 
administration of the program, I'm going to pass, if I could, 
Congressman. I would be glad to provide you with additional 
information. Perhaps, Steve--his broad overview--could give you 
some sense of how that's handled.
    Mr. Dewhurst. Well, I don't know that I know a lot of the 
detail. I know that we set some standards, we are trying to get 
rates that are below local rental rates, and there's 
flexibility to adjust those rates on an area by area basis. But 
the FSA, the Farm Service Agency, runs the program and makes 
all those decisions. And I think that's about the level of 
detail I can go in to.
    Mr. Fazio. I guess we probably shouldn't ask you any more 
questions about this because Shackleford has to answer them.
    Mr. Lyons. That's always better, when Parks has to answer 
his own questions.
    Mr. Fazio. Right, right. Dewhurst has the courage to tell 
us, we've gone about as far as we can go. [Laughter.]
    And the well is dry. [Laughter.]
    I had one other similar question, but I think I'll let Mr. 
Bonilla go, and then hang on for Ms. Kaptur's questions, and 
then I'll get back to you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Skeen. Thank you, sir. Mr. Bonilla.

                  american heritage rivers initiative

    Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, chairman. Mr. Lyons, I'd like to 
start out by thanking you for the news today about the RC&D 
Pecos Valley announcement. I appreciate you not only making 
that announcement here at this hearing, but I appreciate you 
letting me know earlier today about that. That's good news 
because that's something I also brought up when Secretary 
Glickman was here, not too long ago. So, thanks for that 
announcement.
    I want to start my first question, Mr. Lyons, to tie into 
what Mr. Skeen was asking about earlier on the American 
Heritage Rivers Initiative. That's been the subject of so many 
hearings back in Texas, and so much controversy. I know when I 
brought this up with the Secretary, he pointed out that, in his 
view, there was a lot of support out there for this initiative. 
But, to start from Ground Zero on this, Mr. Lyons, where did 
this idea develop in the first place? Was there an outcry in 
the heartland for this? Did it come from the agriculture 
community? What has caused the administration to move forward 
so aggressively on this program in the first place?
    Mr. Lyons. Well, I know that, of course, there's the issue 
of clean water always resonates with the American public and it 
has been a concern of all Americans. The notion of a focus 
program on rivers, though, I think was highlighted in the 
President's State of the Union Address a year ago in which he 
indicated that he desired to be able to announce 10 rivers for 
inclusion in the system.
    I think that announcement triggered a lot of activity 
within the administration to work to make sure we could put 
together a program that would be responsive to local interests 
and concerns, that would be voluntary in nature, but that would 
use existing resources in the most efficient way possible so as 
to help communities that saw value in that designation realize 
their goals.
    Mr. Bonilla. So it didn't originate at all at USDA, even 
though quite a bit of the function is now falling under your 
jurisdiction. Chairman Skeen asked earlier about something I 
also asked the Secretary, about. Some of the money for American 
Heritage Rivers is coming out of the Watershed Survey and 
Planning account while, on one hand, USDA is saying this is an 
area we need to get more funding toward and, on the other hand, 
we're spending money on the American Heritage Rivers Initiative 
that was not designated in the first place.
    I realize you all have some latitude in how you spend 
dollars and I know this is not a lot of money Mr. Lyons. I know 
that the agency has to carry a lot of water for initiatives 
that start outside your jurisdiction, but this was not an 
initiative that was an idea that came from the agriculture 
community, was it? In the first place? It was started with a 
speech, is that accurate?
    Mr. Lyons. Well, it certainly reflects a lot of dialogue 
that has occurred in the hinterlands of an interest in this 
kind of program, but it was not an NRCS or USDA initiative, no. 
It was an initiative that, I think, began with the President's 
State of the Union Address.
    Mr. Bonilla. One of the reasons I ask that is because it 
has become such a lightning rod out there. There are already so 
many Federal initiatives that have not, by any means, that fall 
under your jurisdiction out there that exists, to help clean up 
our water supplies and systems and rivers and beachfront. I'm 
curious to know with all the Federal, regional, State, and 
local initiatives that exist already, because everyone cares 
about having clean water, that's not in dispute at all, why 
there was yet another initiative that was undertaken. That's my 
curiosity.
    Mr. Lyons. Well, I guess my view of the program, 
Congressman, is that it's a mechanism that would allow us to 
experiment with ways of using existing programs and existing 
resources to better deliver services. We have programs and 
authorities to deal with a wide range of resource concerns, but 
oftentimes we'll put together an initiative to try and test a 
new way of delivering those services or to try and experiment 
with ways in which we can work more closely with communities. 
Certainly one of our goals is to do just that and one of the 
driving forces for this has been the community interest, 
actually across the country, in rivers from the Hudson to 
portions of the Columbia. That interest doesn't exist 
everywhere and certainly, the program isn't large enough to 
provide that benefit.
    But, you know, a good example, perhaps a corollary to a 
program like this, we had a very strong, I think, conservation 
program focused on range lands for a number of years and I 
think a very effective one, I know the chairman is very 
familiar with the work we've been doing on range lands, but 
just a few years ago we announced the Grazing Lands 
Conservation Initiative, which we developed in partnership with 
the grazing community. Some might look at that as a new 
initiative, on the other hand, it was a way to bring together 
community interests, the ranching community, our technical 
assistance, and range conservationists, to develop partnerships 
to identify new ways to forward conservation efforts while 
promoting production agriculture. In much the same vein, the 
Heritage River Program is an initiative but hopefully a way 
that will actually help to further a community effort--not just 
a government effort, but a public-private partnership and help 
these communities realize their goals.
    And in some places, that's meant a big difference in terms 
of economic development, rejuvenating waterfronts in downtown 
areas where river segments can benefit. I can think of a city 
where I live, Baltimore, which used resources, I don't know 
they were Federal resources, but used resources to rejuvenate 
their downtown and it's made a big difference in terms of the 
economic vitality of that part of the city. The same might, in 
fact, occur through efficient use of the Heritage River 
Program. Again, provided communities have that interest. If 
they don't have that interest, then we would not impose 
anything of that nature on them.
    Mr. Bonilla. Well, I appreciate that because, as you 
pointed out and alluded to, the desires for this initiative 
vary greatly, depending on what part of the country you come 
from. The example you point out, of Baltimore, is a good one. 
I'd point out the one in my hometown of San Antonio, as well.
    Mr. Lyons. Probably a better one.
    Mr. Bonilla. The River Walk is a magnificent example of how 
to properly take care of a wonderful river and turn it into a 
huge, national tourist attraction. But, again, it ties into my 
earlier point, all that was done before there was any American 
Heritage Rivers Initiative and I wonder why people can't look 
at examples of Baltimore, San Antonio and other communities to 
see we don't really need to undertake anything new like this. 
Let me almost speak in the words of my farmers and ranchers 
back home who are highly suspicious of a new Federal 
initiative.
    The Endangered Species Act started out as a look-good, 
feel-good, sound-good, warm and fuzzy idea many years ago, and 
it was. But then those who are not really interested in saving 
species use it to impose power on communities.
    The same can be used for the Americans with Disabilities 
Act which is a great idea and we still think it has a lot of 
potential but then you get the attorneys involved in this. 
There are horror stories out there that attorneys from one 
community go into another one, they're not even from, they 
start measuring doorways and they just see it as an opportunity 
to cash in.
    So, Federal initiatives, regardless of whether they fall in 
the agriculture community or not, cause a lot of farmers and 
ranchers out there to be highly suspect of any new initiative 
that might impact them. Your intentions, I'm sure, are very 
pure and the administration's may be pure, as well, on what the 
outcome AHRI would be, but based on the historic problems that 
some of my constituents have had with Federal initiatives, 
they're highly suspect of what it might wind up being.
    There could be language in there, when it covers 
watersheds, that might wind up spreading hundreds of miles 
beyond the river affected. And then next thing you know, you 
have people coming out to rope off their property and say that 
you can't do something on your land here because it might feed 
into a river that's part of this program. So, they're just gun 
shy about having anything like this develop and I know that you 
can appreciate that. What are you hearing from farmers and 
ranchers out there about this program, overall?
    Mr. Lyons. I think, as you know Congressman, there's surely 
been a mixed reaction. I think we've tried to allay people's 
fears by indicating that there are no new regulatory components 
to this program, unlike some of the programs you cited. You 
know, I think this is a program that once we have some examples 
on the ground, I think others will be able to judge.
    And I've talked to communities who are excited about the 
opportunity to have an American Heritage Rivers designated. 
They see that as an opportunity to bring a highlight to their 
waterway or their community, perhaps to bring in new commerce. 
The San Antonio experience is an excellent example, developed 
in a little different light.
    I wouldn't claim that all good ideas come from government; 
quite the opposite. I think maybe we're capitalizing on a good 
idea here that existed in the private sector--and the San 
Antonio situation was, again, a private-public partnership, I 
believe--and just trying to further that along. And if 
communities desire it, we want to be there. We want to be 
helpful as we need to be in serving all communities and all 
interests. And if not, then obviously we would move forward.
    You know, all I can do is answer people's questions with 
regard to the program, and express our intent. I'm sure it's 
going to be a trust-but-verify situation.
    Mr. Bonilla. I appreciate, so far, the signs we're getting 
that the program will allow local communities to opt out if 
they really don't want to be part of it and if someone in 
another part of the country wants to welcome it in their 
neighborhood, they can have a great time with it, if they like.

                environmental quality incentives program

    I only have one other question, it's on the EQIP program. I 
want to finish out with. This question on the changes that were 
made to the ranking formula in Texas last year, just 3 days 
before the end of the program which caused concerns among large 
land owners.
    This was especially troubling to many of my constituents 
because out in west Texas you've got to have quite a few acres 
to make a living. When the formula was adjusted, this was done 
at the direction of the regional office and calculations for 
cost-per-acre were taken out of the formula.
    My question is, what kind of role does the regional office 
play in this decision, and was your office consulted before the 
final change was made? Without cost-per-acre calculations, what 
other considerations are made to ensure that we're getting the 
most conservation benefits for the dollars spent with this 
program?
    Mr. Lyons. I'd like Mr. Clark to address that, if you 
could, Congressman.
    Mr. Clark. Mr. Congressman, the ranking criterion that's 
used at the State to rank their priority proposals is a State 
determination. The reason our office provides some oversight is 
to make sure that those ranking criteria are consistent with 
the regional strategic plan.
    One of the things that we do to ensure that those decisions 
aren't too far out of line with the program objective is that 
we do conduct oversight reviews of those State-level decisions. 
That is one of the functions of the regional office. We have 
conducted one oversight review, thus far, of the program, and 
we plan to do a Phase 2 review of the program this year to make 
sure that it's running properly.
    Mr. Bonilla. Okay. We may have some more follow-up 
questions for the record. I'd appreciate a prompt response, if 
you would. And I appreciate you all being here today, very 
much. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, chairman.
    Mr. Skeen. Ms. Kaptur.

                            soil management

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being 
delayed in arriving at the hearing today. We have medical 
nutrition nurses from my region, so I had to meet with them 
first. And I have read your testimony, Mr. Lyons, Mr. Reed. Ms. 
Dubey, welcome. Mr. Clark, glad to have you here today. And, 
always, Mr. Dewhurst, who is the 436th member of the House at 
this point, based on the number of hours he's spent here. 
[Laughter.]
    I would like to begin by saying that I appreciate your 
testimony and some of the supplementary materials, including 
this backyard conservation issue that was brought. Could you 
give us a sense--I see your comments on grazing land, and their 
quality. I think that I, as a Member, appreciate kind of a 
global view, as far as North America is concerned, and your 
view on how well are we doing at conserving our soil quality as 
a country. You have some statements in your testimony that over 
half of the grazing land in non-Federal hands is essentially in 
fair or poor condition, but I'm not only interested in the 
grazing land, I'm interested in our soils in general.
    How are we doing in terms of conservation and resource 
management as a country compared to 20 years ago? You read a 
lot in the newspapers that we're over-utilizing our soils, that 
because of chemical applications and so forth, that we have 
reached a point with water quality, for example, in many of our 
rural areas, that we have reason to be concerned that America 
can't continue to be this engine of soils that keeps producing, 
that at some point the piper is going to call his due. How do 
you put this perspective beyond this budget proposal? How would 
you explain to the American people, how are we doing as a 
country with proper soil management for today and tomorrow?
    Mr. Lyons. Well, Congresswoman, I appreciate that question. 
Let me suggest that, I think we're doing very well on a path 
that requires continued progress. You know, it all boils down 
to soils. There the basis for producing food and fiber that 
supports all of us. And, you know, critical to clean water, 
wildlife habitat, all the other needs and interests we have. I 
think, my perspective, probably should go back to the 1985 Farm 
Bill which is the first time I really got actively involved in 
conservation initiatives in a different role as a member of the 
Agriculture Committee staff, actually, the tail-end of that 
farm bill. And, since 1985, I think, we've realized tremendous 
gains in curbing soil erosion. Erosion rates are down by about 
42 percent since 1985.
    Ms. Kaptur. Is that because of--excuse me--no till and our 
contour plowing, and drainage. What accounts for the greatest 
share of the progress, you feel, that has been made?
    Mr. Lyons. Well, I think, it's a number of things. 
Certainly, the Conservation Reserve Program has contributed a 
great deal by taking highly erodible lands out of production. 
The Sodbuster Program, which was a part of the 1985 Farm Bill, 
helped to address tillage practices that were having a negative 
impact. In 1990, we expanded the scope of our programs and 
instituted new programs, like the Water Quality Incentive 
Program, the Wetland Reserve Program, and the like. And, then 
in 1996, enhanced, again, the conservation tool kit by 
converting WQIP to the EQIP Program adding the Wildlife Habitat 
Improvement Program, expanding authorities--reauthorizing and 
expanding authorities to the CRP Program and the like.
    All of that has provided steady progress. And, I think 
what's most significant is the growing recognition that good 
land stewardship, good conservation is the key to much of the 
environmental quality that we seek to achieve. By that, I mean 
better land stewardship is critical to reducing non-point-
source pollution, which is going to be critical to improving 
water quality nationwide.
    The President's most recent For Clean Water Action Plan 
focuses squarely on public and private lands stewardship as a 
key to improving water quality. I think that's a significant 
shift in focus and understanding because for many years we 
focused on what came at the end of a pipe as opposed to what 
ran off farm and ranch land and urban, and suburban areas.
    I think the progress continues with this budget. And, I 
think where we're making investments, they will help us reduce 
soil erosion further, will help us make gains in improving soil 
quality, will help us improve wildlife habitat.
    I think we're making a lot of progress, and that's not to 
say additional investment wouldn't help more. And, I think, 
within the constraints of the budget we're operating under, 
we're doing very well and, hopefully, we'll continue to do 
well.
    But, you know, I should let Pearlie answer this question. 
He has the perspective of having been a State Conservationist 
in a number of places across the country and, of course, most 
recently, was Paul Johnson's Associate Chief. So, he might 
offer some good perspective.
    Ms. Kaptur. I'm very interested, for instance, in our prime 
lands a classification A or 1, whatever classification you give 
them. Do we have more or less organics in those soils today 
than we did 25 years ago?
    Mr. Reed. I would intuitively say less.

                         loss of prime farmland

    Ms. Kaptur. And do we have more or less Prime 1 soils left 
in this country than 25 years ago?
    Mr. Reed. Land is continually diminishing in terms of prime 
farm land. But, I'd like to pick up on what Mr. Lyons said 
about what Paul Johnson would refer to as ``the health of the 
land.'' I think the health of the land is good. I think it 
could be a lot better. I think the programs that have been 
provided to us through the Farm Bill will help us get to where 
we need to be. I think the partnership that we enjoy with 
conservation districts, state conservation agencies, and 
others, collectively, with the Federal Program will help us 
write the prescription so that we can do everything that is 
needed to protect our great land resource.
    One thing that I would like to pick up on as a part of some 
of the things that Paul Johnson started was trying to establish 
within the NRCS, and within the Department of Agriculture, a 
way of assessing the health of the land so that we can give 
better answers to questions that you asked.

                     emergency supplemental request

    Ms. Kaptur. You have your biggest supporter here in that. 
And, I know that in Ohio, which has more urban areas than any 
other state in the Union, we constantly have this struggle 
between urbanization and farm land--productive farmland. And, I 
have a terrible sinking feeling at the depths of my stomach that we 
have lost very productive prime one land. I asked Mr. Johnson, one 
time, you know, couldn't we restore it. If we lost it here, can we 
restore it there. Well, no you can't turn sand into loam. You can't 
really--pretty hard to do that, and, based on the characteristics just 
in my area. So, as just one American who happens to hold office, I 
would encourage you in those efforts and I would hope that in future 
submissions of testimony that there might be maps, or statistics that 
are provided so we can share this information with our communities, 
with the press, with those that sit in these hearings.
    We know that 75 percent of what we consume as a country is 
produced within areas that are urbanizing and it's very hard 
to--that's why they were settled in the first place, because 
people could produce food to eat. And, it seems that we have a 
responsibility, if I heard you correctly, that we now have 
very, highly-productive soils that have fewer organics in them 
than they did 25 years ago, and that we, as a country, for 
whatever reason, are systematically diminishing our top soils 
in a world that will add 85 million people a year in the next 
century. That doesn't seem to make much sense unless we're all 
going to produce hydroponics out of the Pacific Ocean and the 
Atlantic, and the Gulf. Maybe somebody here has figured out how 
to do that. But, if the land is going to be more important in 
the next century, then we ought to be more thoughtful about 
what we do with it. And, this is not to take away from all the 
efforts you're making on nongrazing land, and grazing land, in 
trying to work with landowners, but it seems that we need a 
mental picture and a visual picture. And, I think, this is 
helpful to focus individual property owners, but I think we 
also need a national photograph in our minds to encourage 
better behavior, whatever that is, in respect for these soils. 
So, I wanted to ask that initially, because, particularly, when 
this agency comes up and testifies, it is sometimes hard to get 
your hands around what it is stewardship means long-term. And, 
you know, I see all the different budget items and I vote for 
all these things, but it would be more helpful to keep us 
focused on what the goals are. I mean, when the NASA people 
come up here, they give us the goals real clearly. Sometimes we 
don't agree, but they're more able to quantify it than I've 
seen NRCS do in your presentations to us.
    On the issue of the $40 million in the emergency 
supplemental request for the Watershed and Flood Prevention 
Operations, the fact is that we have some Members of Congress 
who would like to see offsets to pay for those funds. And, I'm 
just wondering if there are any programs in your jurisdiction 
that you've talked about internally within the Department that 
could be cut at this point of the year to fully offset the $40 
million request?
    Mr. Lyons. I'd like to say no. But, I should probably refer 
to Mr. Dewhurst in terms of the overall USDA budget. You know, 
I would just offer, Congresswoman, 2 points. As I said, we're 
making continued progress in addressing the concerns that you 
raised, but we are taxed in many respects with regard to having 
the resources to do the conservation technical assistance and 
other activities.
    The conservation work comes down to 1-on-1 communication 
between landowner, whether urban, or suburban, or rural, and 
the person that has the expertise. So, the more we whittle 
away, the more difficult it is to ensure we can deliver those 
services. I don't know if Steve--within the Department, there 
has been a dialogue about offsets, but I know we haven't been a 
part of that as of yet.
    Mr. Dewhurst. We had a dialogue when we were putting the 
supplementals together, both within the department and the OMB. 
The total supplemental for the department is about $150 
million, including the $40 million that you referenced in the 
NRCS. We, in the end, did not propose offsets for that. You 
know, the department's discretionary budget breaks down into 
some basic components rural development, conservation, 
research, Woman, Infants and Children in our salary and 
expenses money. And, we were not able to find any easy place to 
go to save $150 million without consequences in one of those 
areas that were not acceptable from a policy point of view. 
Though in the end--and, of course governmentwide, offsets were 
not proposed for the emergency supplementals.
    Ms. Kaptur. What would happen to programs like EQIP and 
your Wetland Reserves Program and the Farmland Protection 
Program if that $40 million was spread across those programs.
    Mr. Lyons. Well, I'll just offer one example of the 
Farmland Protection Program. You will see in the legislative 
package that we're forwarding to the Congress a request for an 
increased authority in farmland protection up to $70 million. 
We've exhausted, or will exhaust the authority, as we have 
exhausted the authority that currently exists in the Farm Bill. 
We need more there. I mean, you pointed to one of the critical 
issues in the loss of prime farmland. We're losing about 1.5 
million acres a year, and half of that is prime land.
    I, too, grew up in an urban part of the county in northern 
New Jersey, and that land supports not corn fields any more, 
but condominiums. And, it's a tremendous loss. It will never be 
regained. Ohio faces a similar difficulty. So----
    Ms. Kaptur. There's probably no hotter issue in Ohio than 
that issue in the rural countryside and I just polled in my 
district--we've gotten over 10,000 answers back, and I've been 
shocked at the support of the people in the urban community and 
their sensitivity to farmland protection. I really--I mean, I 
believe it, but I was shocked at the weight of opinion on one 
side of the equation on this one.
    Ms. Kaptur. Well, I know that's true in California, as 
well, and Washington. I just met with a group of leadership 
from New Jersey, the Garden State, and Governor Christine Todd 
Whitman made that her number 1 priority in her state address, 
open space protection and preservation. I think that says 
something about critical concern that the country is coming to 
recognize and the need to protect prime farmland and open 
space.
    Ms. Kaptur. Are you saying to me, if this $40 million were 
to spread across EQIP, Wetlands, Reserve and Farmland 
Protection, what would happen to those?
    Mr. Lyons. It would hurt.
    Ms. Kaptur. How much?
    Mr. Lyons. How much? A lot. [Laughter.]

                               user fees

    Ms. Kaptur. On user fees, I wanted to ask a question. Your 
1999 request is a proposal to offset costs under the America's 
Private Land Conservation Program with the collection of $10 
million in user fees and the budget justification materials 
indicate that these user fees will cover technical assistance 
for a variety of items including services and I quote ``for 
which there is little public good from the Government's total 
service.''
    Could you tell us what types of services you are now 
providing which offer little public good?
    Mr. Lyons. I hate to do this to Steve again, but I tell you 
what, I will read you the list that's been identified as user-
fee candidates, if that would help? And, this guidance we've 
received, in large measure, from OMB; conservation plans 
exceeding 16 hours work; foundation seed initial supply; 
foundation plants; testing for animal-waste storage lagoons; 
testing for dams; water supply forecasts; climate data; snow-
tell data; soil survey publications; wetland delineations; 
irrigation systems are potential candidates for user fees.
    Ms. Kaptur. And your budget says that you worked with 
impacted constituent groups in developing these user fees--user 
fee activities. Could you submit, for the record, which groups 
you've been working with and what has been their reaction to 
this user-fee proposal.
    Mr. Lyons. I actually think that's prospective, Ms. Kaptur. 
The intent is if we proceed along this route to have that 
dialogue, I think to a large measure, at this point in time, 
there's not been a great deal of dialogue with those potential 
impacted groups, unless I'm mistaken.
    Ms. Kaptur. This user fee proposal would requireauthorizing 
legislation. Has that, yet, been sent to the appropriate legislative 
committee?
    Mr. Dewhurst. No ma'am, it has not. I was told this morning 
we're awaiting some clearances, but we expect to have those by 
the end of this week. So, that legislation will be on the hill 
very shortly.
    Ms. Kaptur. How shortly is shortly Mr. Dewhurst?
    Mr. Dewhurst. Within a few days.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have second round, 
but I will withhold at this point.
    Mr. Skeen. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur.
    Mr. Nethercutt.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Mr. Chairman, I yield to Mr. Fazio--were 
you here earlier, were you ahead of me?
    Mr. Fazio. I had a question in the first round.

                      conservation reserve program

    Mr. Nethercutt. Okay. Thank you. Welcome Mr. Lyons and 
ladies and gentlemen.
    I want to talk with you about CRP. I've had my problems 
with it the last year or so, regarding the 15th signup. And, 
what I'm hearing from our farmers this year is that, while 
we're delighted with the 16th signup results, there's concern 
about the cover planting requirements. The native grass the 
department, apparently, expects to be planted, doesn't seem to 
be available commercially for some of those species in 
Washington State. And the department is asking the farmer to 
spray a large amount of established CRP in order for these new 
department-approved seed plugs.
    So, I'm wondering if there is some flexibility, or some 
thought being given to the fact that we are spraying out large 
amounts of herbicide to remove established wildlife habitat 
that has taken several years to establish. And, I'm wondering 
why we're doing that and insisting upon new species of grass 
and cover to be planted. Is there an explanation for that?
    Mr. Lyons. Congressman, if I could, I'm going to ask Mr. 
Clark to address that.
    Mr. Clark. Mr. Congressman, the CRP Program, as you know, 
is one that's now designed to generate more environmental 
benefits for the dollars invested. So, we find around the 
country when we look at old plantings of CRP that there are 
cover types that would yield greater environmental benefits and 
those cover types are established locally in the Field Office 
Tech Guide. Most of them are based on the establishment of 
native species.
    So what we do is we do expect to attain those environmental 
benefits that produces wood, reestablish higher quality native 
species. We do make provisions for them to do that over a 
period of time. We, in fact, just released this week some 
additional guidance, giving state's additional flexibility to 
do that.
    So, we are concerned, as you are, about the availability of 
native seeds commercially and are trying to work with the 
states to ensure that they do have the seeds to establish these 
new planting cover types, as well as meet the mandates of the 
law.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Have you done any cost-benefit analysis in 
the department relative to these new seed species 
requirements--planting requirements.
    Mr. Clark. I do know that there was a programmatic cost-
benefit analysis done, but I can't speak directly to your 
question.

                              soil surveys

    Mr. Nethercutt. In the Eastern Washington, it's by and 
large dry soils, and ash content is there and in many cases--in 
fact, most cases that I can know of, there's established cover 
and established wildlife habitat protection that seems to be 
working. To the farmer in the field, it seems counterproductive 
to spend, you know, $300-per-acre-plus on a new requirement 
when the old requirement seems to working just great.
    I would appreciate it if someone, in your office, Mr. 
Lyons, could advise us as to what, if any, consideration is 
being given to that fact, in the east side of the State of 
Washington, considering those unique soil conditions.
    I want to ask about soil surveys, as well. They were 
critical as the new CRP rules were being administered and we 
understand that the soil surveys that were used to make the 
decisions regarding CRP eligibility were done prior to the Mt. 
Saint Helens' eruption in 1980. Is there a pattern or a system 
under which USDA does new local soil surveys, and if so, do 
things like volcanic eruptions impact the need to do a new soil 
survey?
    Mr. Reed. Mr. Nethercutt, we would like to ask our Deputy 
Chief of Soil Survey, Carol Jett, to respond to that question.
    Carol.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Great.
    Ms. Jett. We do have provisions, sir, for the technical 
section, and there is a----
    Mr. Skeen. Would you suspend and try to take the chair on 
the end, right there, and use that mike, please.
    Ms. Jett. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Skeen. Would you begin again?
    Ms. Jett. There are provisions to have an exception when we 
have event like Mt. Saint Helens. We're aware of the concerns 
regarding the P&K factors there in Washington State. And, we do 
have on the table, I believe, a proposal to do a soil survey 
update for the whole area affected by that. And, that's 
pending.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Do you know when the last one was done?
    Ms. Jett. No, sir. I don't.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Okay. Is it possible it was done before 
1980?
    Ms. Jett. Yes.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Is there a regular procedure for updating 
soil surveys as a matter of policy in the department?
    Ms. Jett. We are attempting to finalize the once-over soil 
survey for the whole country and after that occurs in an area, 
if the local people are interested in updating, we will 
cooperate with them, and attempt to achieve that.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all.

    merging of technical assisting for the watershed accounts into 
                        conservation operations

    Mr. Skeen. Thank you, Mr. Nethercutt. The budgets you are 
proposing also have a proposal to merge the conservation 
operations and the watershed planning accounts. What is the 
rationale for merging these accounts?
    Mr. Lyons. I don't know. So, I need to----
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Skeen. That's a very honest answer. Pearlie?
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Lyons. I think from a staff standpoint, Larry, if you 
want to respond, that's fine.
    Mr. Clark. I'll try, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Skeen. Thank you.
    Mr. Clark. The rationale for merging those two accounts 
stems from the fact that much of the programmatic investment 
that supports the watershed activity, now, is in the form of 
technical assistance. And, the belief is that, if we put those, 
the technical assistance staff from the watershed staff, put 
those people with the conservation operations people, we'd have 
more flexibility in terms of managing programs.
    Mr. Skeen. Would this have any adverse affect on the 
capacity to deal with emergencies and/or technical activities? 
At one time, as I recall, they were together to begin with.
    Mr. Clark. Not with conservation operations. We had the 
pilot--yes.
    Mr. Skeen. In the early days.
    Mr. Clark. Right. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Skeen Yes, sir. Excuse me, go ahead.
    Mr. Clark. Over time there is likely to be some diminished 
capacity to deal with the emergencies, because as those 
employees do more and more field level face-to-face work with 
farmers, there may be some diminished capacity to do the heavy 
engineering that's involved in carrying out emergency work. So, 
there could be, over the long haul, some impact in our ability 
to respond to emergencies.
    Mr. Skeen. So, it expands the area of coverage to try to 
use either management or technical advice.
    Mr. Clark. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Skeen. That was the old concept to begin with, 
Ibelieve. We're going back to it.
    Mr. Clark. Yes, sir.

                         clean water initiative

    Mr. Skeen. Let's go back to the Clean Water situation. I 
notice that you also have $20 million set aside in support of, 
yet another, clean water initiative. Do you anticipate any 
regulatory changes as a result of initiating this effort?
    Mr. Lyons. No, Mr. Chairman. What we would anticipate to do 
with that $20 million is provide the seed funding, if you will, 
for community-based watershed initiatives to try to encourage 
that kind of collaboration at the ground level.
    Mr. Skeen. Participation at the local level?
    Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir, and we believe we can do that under 
existing authority. It would operate so much similar to the way 
the RC&D program has worked and that way would use some base 
funding. Of course in RC&D we provide people. In this instance, 
the funds would be to support local efforts where watershed 
coordinators, or existing RC&D, or conservation districts want 
to take it upon themselves to help to pull together watershed-
based strategy for conservation.
    Mr. Skeen. Does that expertise have to come out of your 
Department?
    Mr. Lyons. Well, we would work, cooperatively, with those 
watershed counsels or----
    Mr. Skeen Coordinators?
    Mr. Lyons. [continuing] Or coordinators, and try to help 
them, you know, further their goals. We provide the technical 
assistance. Their role would be to provide the coordination.
    Mr. Skeen. But these would be non-Federal coordinators?
    Mr. Lyons. Yes. That's correct.
    Mr. Skeen So, they use private sector people, or whoever is 
available? Who selects these folks?
    Mr. Lyons. Well, these would be self-selected within a 
community within the watershed. That's correct.
    Mr. Skeen. Sort of a honorary condition?
    Mr. Lyons. Well, I think it would be not unlike the way 
conservation districts operate or the way RC&Ds identify 
individuals who coordinate.
    Mr. Skeen. So establishing a municipal RC&D, or watershed 
RC&D?
    Mr. Lyons. Well, it would be a watershed structure similar 
to way--the best analogy I can offer is the RC&D program the 
way it does work. I think it has proven its effectiveness in 
pulling the community together to help develop a focused 
conservation effort and we think that the similar approach in 
watersheds would help further efforts there.
    There are similar models. The State of Oregon is actually 
in the process of trying to set a program that would encourage 
that kind of watershed coordination.
    Mr. Skeen. Let's have Mr. Serrano, and we'll back up here. 
Mr. Serrano.
    Mr. Serrano. I'm not ready right now, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Skeen All right. Mr. Fazio--if it's all right with Ms. 
Kaptur.

                environmental quality incentives program

    Mr. Fazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to follow up 
on--I want to go back to the Conservation Reserve Program. And 
I agree with Ms. Kaptur when she talked about the real popular 
support for land conservation out there. You say in your budget 
that the foremost tool you really have to bring about to 
advance in this area is true technical assistance and yet, when 
we go through the proposal, we not only have the $10 million in 
user fees, which we talked about, we have a lot of earmarking 
of special activities, and we have a 10-percent limit in the 
EQIP Program on technical assistance. All of which seems to 
make it very hard to really get a lot of money out there to 
people who really need it and who could use it. Obviously, this 
is a budget driven exercise and I'm sure OMB has a lot more to 
do with it than you.
    But, what do you think about, perhaps, doubling the EQIP 
percentage? Do you think it would really make this more 
operational? I see some people shaking their heads? That's not 
on record because--[laughter]--the lady over here.
    Mr. Lyons. Let the record show I didn't shake my head, 
Okay? [Laughter.]
    I just nodded.
    Well, I think, the committee understands the difficult 
circumstances we face there and, certainly, some of the 
reductions in staffing are associated with that issue. 
Candidly, Congressman, as you know, you've been at this much 
longer than I, we need all the people we can on the ground 
working with landowners to get good conservation in place.

                        jurisdiction of programs

    Mr. Fazio. It seems to me in your response earlier to some 
of the questions about the rents and the value of irrigated 
versus dry land, that there really is a conflict between your 
desire to run this program for environmental enhancing. I don't 
mean to say, you know, anything personal, but an inherent 
conflict between the Farm Services Agency and its price support 
programs.
    And, so, when we throw some of these questions to 
Shackelford or others, it seems to me that maybe we don't get 
the right mix of authority in terms of how we run this program. 
I realize this is a little blue sky and it would allow you to 
do a little rating on some colleague's program, but these are 
important questions and they go directly to whose eligible and 
how the program functions. And yet, they're not really in your 
purview.
    Mr. Lyons. Well, let me just say that a lot of progress has 
been made in furthering collaboration between NRCS and FSA on 
the CRP Program. We are involved in developing policies for 
CRP. While we don't administer the program, we certainly have a 
hand in setting standards and then developing things like the 
EBI, the Environmental Benefit Index, and the like.
    You know, there's a change in the landscape with regard to 
farm programs and philosophy which was reflected in the 1996 
farm bill with farm program payments declining over time. In 
many respects, I guess, I would argue that, you know, what 
we're paying for more is conservation rather than price 
supports and supply controls. And, I think, to a lot of people 
maybe that resonates more. People can understand the value of 
investing in conservation and the benefits that come of clean 
water and improved wildlife habitat and the like. And, I think 
FSA, with Park's leadership has sought to move their programs 
in that direction. You know, we're a family at USDA, sometimes 
dysfunctional, but a family--
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Fazio. I'm glad you said that.
    Mr. Lyons [continuing]. And I think we work fairly closely 
in trying to achieve those goals. And, certainly, there's 
always opportunities to improve that working relationship.
    Mr. Fazio. But you can't spread the program around the 
country until you've solved some of these kinds of issues on 
the ground. And, I just want to add my support, obviously, to 
fighting through to solution on some of these things.
    I know that we've had some requests sent up by the 
Department and, I think, there may be some others emanating 
from the Congress to deal with the El Nino effect this year. 
And, I thought I'd ask Pearlie Reed if he would indicate what 
you anticipate coming as a result of the storms of this winter. 
The burdens on your agency are increasing. Certainly, in my 
area.
    Mr. Reed. Well, I think, some of the burden is reflected in 
the Supplemental for Emergency Watershed Protection work and I 
probably ought to go on the record by saying that that is the 
reflection of a snapshot that was taken at some point in time, 
a few weeks ago, and we fully anticipate the burden to increase 
as we further assess the damage of the existing storms and 
other natural disasters. And, of course, only God knows what's 
yet to come.
    Mr. Fazio. Yes. What kind of things are you being asked to 
do in the response? What's the program doing that's relevant to 
the farmers out there?
    Mr. Reed. Well, basically, we do everything from the basic 
restoration and watersheds, going back trying to restore things 
to pre-disaster conditions, to working with our sister agency, 
FSA, in emergency conservation work. And, the list goes on, and 
on, and on. And, I should add that it's much, much broader than 
working on individual farms.It's working in individual 
communities and we have a lot of projects that we engage in on some of 
the public lands, like Forest Service lands.
    Mr. Fazio. I think you've done quite a bit of levee 
restoration in certain parts of the country where we don't have 
a Corps of Engineers project levee, for example, but important 
to the safety of the community or to preservation of lands.
    Mr. Reed. That is correct.

                timber receipts on forest service lands

    Mr. Fazio. And, I certainly appreciate that.
    The last question, Jim, I know this isn't directly in this 
committee's purview, but I'm very interested in the issue of 
timber receipts on forest service lands. I noticed you have 
some provision in your budget this year that tracks some 
legislation I've introduced. It really reflects the fact the 
boom-and-bust cycle, it has been bust lately, in timber 
harvesting have really devastated the amount of money that's 
gone to schools and county Governments for infrastructure, et 
cetera.
    I wonder if you could comment on that and indicate whether 
or not you think legislation is forthcoming to try to implement 
some of the suggestions that would even out the flow of funds 
and make it possible for local Governments to budget more 
effectively.
    Mr. Lyons. Well, I'd be pleased to address that 
Congressman.
    What we've proposed to do is, in essence, stabilize the 
payments to counties for roads and schools that are normally 
associated with timber receipts. Under the existing formula, 
the counties receive 25 percent of the payments that are 
associated with timber sales and other revenue-generating 
activities on the national forest. Of course, those payments 
have varied with timber sale levels. And those timber sale 
levels are varied with lots of things, not the least of which 
has been litigation and other concerns.
    We experimented with this in the Pacific Northwest. As a 
result of the presence of the Northwest Forest Plan, we knew 
there would be a substantial decline in program funding, so the 
Congress legislated a more stable payment that would actually 
decline over time.
    What we've proposed to do in our 1999 budget is actually to 
freeze at the Fiscal Year 1997 levels payment to counties. And, 
that would be true across the country. It actually results in a 
slight increase in outlays for this next Fiscal Year. But, the 
most important thing is it provides stability. So, counties and 
their communities know how much they're going to have next 
year, and the year after, and the year after for roads and 
schools so they can go about the business of planning their own 
economic development, and we can go about business of managing 
forest to maintain--supply the goods and services those 
communities depend on.
    And, as far as, your interest and your leadership, we'd 
certainly like to work with you to try and put that in place. 
We think it's critical to those counties that have been 
impacted across rural America.
    Mr. Fazio. Well take a look at H.R. 2844 and see if you 
find that acceptable, and you might be interested to know that 
GAO is about to embark on a study on this very issue that, 
hopefully, in the next couple of months will give us a lot more 
information that might lead to convince others that this is a 
reasonable response to a real situation that faces a lot of 
these impacted communities.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Skeen. Mr. Walsh.
    Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I'm going to disappoint a lot of people because I'm not 
going to ask any questions. I'm not going to make any speeches. 
Maybe I won't disappoint anybody.
    Mr. Skeen. You made the whole day. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Walsh. Vic asked a lot of good questions, some which I 
was going to ask. I have a bad cold. I got to husband my 
resources, if you will. So, I'm going to keep quiet and thank 
you for your testimony. And, if I have questions, I'll submit 
them for the record.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Skeen. Mr. Serrano.
    Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Walsh, I am 
very disappointed. [Laughter.]
    I'm not going to let you forget this.
    Mr. Walsh. You don't look disappointed.

                      urban resources partnership

    Mr. Serrano. Let me first thank you folks for being here 
with us today, and for all the fine work that you do on behalf 
of the folks in this country. I understand that before I came 
in, Mr. Chairman, there were some comments about the American 
Heritage Rivers Program. And I want to say that in the Bronx, 
New York, we have a river. And, my next question will speak to 
the same topic of the Bronx River which runs right through the 
County of the Bronx, the burough of the Bronx. And, the idea of 
the possibility of being designated under this program has, 
interestingly enough, brought together so many different groups 
in the community like you have never seen before. I've never 
seen an issue that has brought the schools and the clergy, and 
everybody together. It has become in that sense, by itself a 
very positive situation in the Bronx, not to mention what the 
program itself will do.
    So, I'm a strong supporter of the American Heritage Rivers 
Program and if folks don't want it in their district, I'll 
certainly take it in mine and take it all, if you will.
    And, with that in mind, Mr. Lyons, I just want to take this 
opportunity to, once again, comment on my strong support for 
the Urban Resources Partnership. A program that you were 
instrumental in organizing and that has been very successful in 
my Congressional District.
    And, I'd like to know what you feel the plans are in this 
Fiscal Year, for this program, and also how the cooperative 
aspects of the partnership with HUD and Interior, and EPA is 
working. Now let me tell you that it's one of the sites in my 
community that I get to visit on a regular basis. And, the 
whole idea--one of the problems that I have, and I've discussed 
this with Ms. Kaptur, being a member of this committee, is that 
the minute someone from the inner city becomes a part of--a 
member of a committee that has the word ``agriculture'' in it, 
right away the jokes start. And, I've said--you know, it's more 
than teaching us that meat doesn't grow in freezers and 
supermarkets, you know. [Laughter.]
    When I learned that, that was quite a shock to me, but it 
takes time to do that. And, one of my challenges here is to 
find out how the work that I do on this committee, and how this 
subcommittee itself can play a larger role in the inner city--
if nothing else, then certainly educational. But, here you have 
a program, URP, that's done more than that. It has put 
together--members of the community and put together their 
children. They're working on the Bronx River. They've been 
doing it. And, I remember when I was in the State assembly that 
work started and never got off the ground until we got involved 
in it at this level, this level of Government.
    And, I invite anyone to come down and see the excitement in 
the community about that river and the children, and the park 
benches, and the whole thing along the side, and the events 
that they have, and how it's become something you don't expect 
to find in the poorest congressional district in the Nation. 
You expect to hear other stories, but not that story.
    So, I'm in support of the Urban Resources Partnership 
program. I hope you can tell me that it's going to continue to 
grow and that collaborative efforts between the different 
agencies is growing also.
    Mr. Lyons. Well, Congressman, I appreciate your kind words 
about the urban partnership. I also had a chance to visit with 
Ms. Kaptur at an Urban Conservation meeting we attended 
together in Ohio a little while ago about the program efforts. 
The program will continue. Our plans aren't to grow it in 
particular. We're operating now in 13 cities, and it's a 
program that's kind of customized to the needs of particular 
cities. The intent is to allow the communities to guide, in 
close coordination and cooperation with the Federal partners, 
the kinds of conservation activities that ought to occur there. 
In fact, I think ourpeople learn more from the communities than 
they learn from us about partnerships and working relationships.
    I've had a chance to work on the Bronx River Restoration 
Project and met with some of the school kids in your district, 
and I've been back several times. It's exciting to see the 
enthusiasm. For us, it's an opportunity to help kids and adults 
in communities, who may have misperceptions about agriculture, 
understand the role that we play, and, actually, as dangerous 
as it might sound, understand the government can be helpful in 
learning how to do things--in this case, whether it's cleaning 
up the river, the waterfront, the plantings we've done there, 
and the like.
    And the partnership includes a broad array of Federal 
agencies. The intent really was to try to take the agencies 
operating in urban areas with limited resources--we only invest 
a little over $2 million a year in our urban program--and try 
to multiply the benefits through that coordination and 
collaboration. So we're working with Forest Service and NRCS 
and Extension and Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service 
and Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency and HUD, 
and I think we've got a very good working relationship. I hope 
that relationship continues.
    I should note--and this will come up, I hope, in the 
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee meeting I have later this 
week--that the Park Service has proposed $3 million for their 
urban efforts this year, as part of this collaboration. So they 
want to be larger contributors to the larger cooperative 
venture we call this Urban Resources Partnership. It's an 
experiment in community-led conservation from communities who 
have no reason to even know anything about conservation, but 
they do, and they get it, and they make a difference. Some of 
the best days I've had in this job--and I've had some good days 
and some bad days--some of the best days I've had in this job 
have been working in those communities and watching the 
enthusiasm on the part of those kids cleaning up the Bronx 
River. I think they're learning a little something. It's 
fascinating to see them react to the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service and the Forest Service. They don't even 
know those things exist. They do now, and it's exciting. I hope 
we're going to actually generate a few future conservation 
leaders through that effort, because we need more of them.
    Mr. Serrano. Yes, I hope we do. Let me just, in closing, 
mention two other things which are extremely important as a 
result of this program. They're both subjects that are 
sometimes a little delicate to touch, but it's important to 
touch them, especially when it's a positive situation that you 
find yourselves in.
    One is that in my community, unfortunately, sometimes when 
you build something, you have to keep an eye on it, that some 
misguided vandal won't touch it. For some reason, the whole 
community knows about the work along the river, and nobody's 
climbing over any fence to mess it up. On the contrary, it 
belongs to everybody, and it's a little oasis in the middle of 
the Bronx.
    And, secondly, my district is 98 percent minority, 
Hispanic, mostly Puerto Rican and African American. 
Unfortunately, sometimes the chances of those children to see 
somebody else of another group are very limited. This program 
has brought people together, people who come and spend their 
weekends, their summers, their week, with the children, and 
those children in that program are getting an experience, a 
life experience, that they wouldn't get anywhere else.
    Now I know we're not supposed to be doing what the school 
system was supposed to do, but inner-city school systems can 
become segregated in so many ways. And I just can't stop 
telling you just how excited I am about this program, and I 
hope that no one decides to kill it.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Lyons. I appreciate that. Thank you.
    Mr. Skeen. Ms. Kaptur.

                                 soils

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Reed, if I were to ask you whether or not USDA could 
provide this committee with a map of the best soils in the 
world, does such a map exist? In other words, we could display 
it, and it would show some sections of the United States, some 
sections of Europe? If we were to look at both agricultural 
land and grazing lands--have you ever seen such a map?
    Mr. Reed. Yes and no, but, to answer your question, if it 
doesn't exist, within two weeks it will. [Laughter.]
    And we would like to follow up with you or some of your 
staff people to get some input, to make sure that what we have 
or what we need to produce reflects your thoughts and ideas.
    Ms. Kaptur. I think it ought to be on a website over there 
at USDA. I think we ought----
    Ms. Jett. It is.
    Ms. Kaptur. It is? It exists? You're sure it exists? For 
the world or just for the United States?
    Ms. Jett. The United States.
    Ms. Kaptur. Okay, I'm interested in global soils. I'm 
interested in comparison data, and I'm also interested in time 
series data, just like we measure fish in Lake Erie, the ebbs 
and flows of fish production there. I'd be very interested in 
the soils. So I'm just challenging you--I don't expect you to 
have it in two weeks, but to the extent you can produce that 
kind of material or refer me to where I could get it, that 
would be a most interesting piece of information to look at. 
Then we can get into productivity and some of the other 
measures later, but it's a finite resource, I think, as far as 
I know, unless we're going to do something up there on the moon 
or make the waters more productive, but that would be most 
appreciated.
    I also wanted to ask you--I have heard a rumor that, though 
you stated--I think it was Mr. Lyons stated there is 1.5 
million acres of prime farm land annually--I think I heard that 
correctly--that in this country is diminished or replaced with 
some other type of use?
    Mr. Lyons. It's converted to some other use.

                      conservation reserve program

    Ms. Kaptur. Converted to another use. Is there the 
possibility that the Conservation Reserve Program is operating 
to enroll certain soils that are not fragile in nature, but 
essentially are productive soils? Could that be happening, even 
though there's quite a bit of money been put in that program, 
and more will be put in that program? Is there a possibility 
that CRP is actually enrolling productive soils that are not 
being used today?
    Mr. Lyons. I'm not sure how to address that. I'm going to 
let Pearlie take that on. I know, obviously, we have focused in 
on highly erodible soils. As the program is expanded to try to 
achieve other environmental benefits, perhaps other soils 
become part of the program and enrolled.
    Pearlie, why don't you deal with that?
    Mr. Reed. Ms. Kaptur, our Chief Soil Scientist here really 
wants to respond to that.
    Ms. Kaptur. All right. All right, I see her on the edge of 
her chair. [Laughter.]
    Ms. Jett. I would say that, for the most part, the 
Conservation Reserve Program looks for the best environmental 
benefit per dollar spent. There are some cases where, in fact, 
we would take productive soils, such as buffer strips, and put 
them to a higher use for filtering out runoff and that kind of 
thing. So to say that we don't take productive soils out in CRP 
wouldn't be technically correct, because in some cases the best 
use of that is for a buffer.
    Ms. Kaptur. All right, but it is closely monitored?
    Ms. Jett. Absolutely.

                 resources conservation and development

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
    I wanted to ask, Mr. Lyons, the Fiscal Year 1998 RC&D 
budget included a $5 million increase to $34.7 million, and 
this year's budget--the proposal for next year--continues that 
at a flat level. I understand you will soon be authorizing new 
RC&D areas for participation in this year's program. Can you 
assure this committee that new RC&D areas will be equally 
distributed across the Nation, or is there a regional bias?
    Mr. Lyons. Well, hopefully, there's no regional bias.You 
may have missed this one when the committee first started. In fact, I 
think I said this before you joined us, but actually the Secretary 
announced 25 new areas just today, and they include areas, just to give 
you an example, in the States of California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, 
Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New 
York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, 
and expansion of RC&Ds in California, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Texas. 
That's the list. I can provide you with specific details on them.
    Ms. Kaptur. Does that include the acreage?
    Mr. Lyons. No, I don't think I have that noted. We've 
identified the specific counties that are affected, are 
involved in the program. I'd have to give you information on 
the acreage that would be affected.
    Ms. Kaptur. Okay, if you could separate that out by your 
regional area designations, it would be appreciated----
    Mr. Lyons. Very good.
    Ms. Kaptur [continuing]. For the record.
    [The information follows:]

[Page 563--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


                environmental quality incentives program

    Ms. Kaptur. On the EQIP program, the $100 million increase, 
could you tell us a little bit more about how that $100 million 
increase will be used, if enacted?
    Mr. Lyons. Yes. That actually is a part of the initiative 
that the President announced just a few weeks ago to focus in 
on clean water, and I can provide the committee with copies of 
the report and recommendations. The intent is to use these 
additional funds above the base program, which is authorized at 
its current level, to focus in on priority watersheds and 
priority nonpoint-source pollution concerns through a process 
that would be locally driven and would capitalize on the 
expertise that currently exists, and with the State technical 
committees that do assist the State conservationists in setting 
those priorities.
    So we would see it as added resources to focus in on high-
priority watershed concerns across the United States to get a 
jump, if you will, on the nonpoint-source pollution concerns 
that I think are the remaining challenge that we face in 
addressing clean water.
    Ms. Kaptur. Do you largely see that happening in rural 
areas, not necessarily where urban areas and rural areas come 
together, and you may have flooding problems across an urban 
area related to the inability of the rural countryside to 
contain its own runoff? You're largely working in a rural area?
    Mr. Lyons. Not necessarily. Not necessarily, Ms. Kaptur. 
Those decisions would have to be made on a local basis. I think 
one of the challenges we face--I'm sure you're familiar with 
the fact that EPA is in the process of implementing its TMDL 
program, total maximum daily load program, which is a program 
that requires states to identify impaired water bodies or 
stretches of rivers or streams. As they go through that 
process, I think it's becoming apparent that we can't tackle 
the issues of impaired water quality streamage by streamage. We 
need to look throughout the entire watershed. Really, the 
intent of the EQIP dollars and other resources provided in this 
program is to be able to tackle those issues from the 
headwaters of a given watershed or water system all the way 
down through urban and suburban areas, to put the resources 
where they will be most effective. In many instances, that will 
be upstream.
    In the West, for example, New Mexico being, I think, an 
excellent example, a lot of work needs to be done on Federal 
lands, which are the headwaters for the river systems that flow 
throughout the State. So a coordinated effort between those 
upstream areas and downstream areas would be the most effective 
way to address these remaining pollution concerns.
    So it does not presume a focus on rural areas or urban 
areas. To the contrary, it presumes a focus on those areas 
that, through a local watershed assessment process, are 
determined to be the areas where the investments would generate 
the greatest return on water quality.
    Ms. Kaptur. I would just give this insight, and take it for 
what it's worth: Many years ago, in our region of the country, 
where we have less than a 2 percent slope, I received a call 
from a farmer all the way to Washington here, and he goes, 
``Congresswoman, I need your help. I want to build a dike.''
    And I said, ``Sir, what do you want to build a dike for out 
there?''
    And he said, ``Because the water's coming at me, and all my 
plants are getting drenched.'' And he eventually spent his own 
money to build a diking system around his property to pump the 
water out. Now, mind you, this is adjacent to a metropolitan 
area.
    We went to the USDA to try to get help under the Small 
Watershed Program at that time, and basically, it didn't work 
out because our area--the problem is much larger than that 
farmer's property. So what we have now done is we have gone to 
the Army Corps of Engineers because our problem is lower 
Michigan drains into us. I honestly can't tell you how far west 
the watershed goes into Indiana from our part of northwestern 
Ohio, but basically, the city of Toledo, which I represent, 
ends up being a bowl that gets--and it's sort of a slanted bowl 
like this that goes out to the lake, and the flooding problems 
within the city are very, very significant--worse and worse 
every year.
    Now we're working with EPA. EPA's answer is to build these 
big containment facilities under the heart of the city, these 
large 90-inch pipes with huge containing basins underneath the 
city, but we have a major problem with runoff that starts with 
the farmland north, west, and south of us, and basically drains 
where the rivers become--so what the Corps has done over the 
years is spent millions of our tax dollars in trying to keep 
the rivers flowing, but the problem really starts in the 
agricultural hairline. And I have to be honest with you and say 
that USDA was really not very much help in being a partner in 
these discussions years back, and we went to the Corps simply 
because it had the jurisdiction interstate and regionally, 
where they could convene various parties that have to be a part 
of the solution, whether it's going to be reservoir containment 
out in the more rural areas.
    But I would hope that the EQIP program and some of the new 
ways that you're functioning you might find a way to be a 
better partner at the local level and assume more of a 
leadership role, since so much of this really is water coming 
across the land, and with inadequate drainage and holding 
facilities in the rural communities. So that's just one 
experience we had in our area.
    Mr. Lyons. Well, I'd like to do a little homework to see 
what the problem was in the past and make sure we're better 
partners in the future.

                          merger--nrcs and fsa

    Ms. Kaptur. Okay, I thank you for that. My final question 
regards the possibility of merging the NRCS with the Farm 
Service Agency, and I understand that the Economic Research 
Service has been doing some work on that. Could you give us the 
current status of that study, and also, would you care to 
comment, either you or Mr. Reed, on your views on what that 
might--how you might receive that, were it to happen? What 
would its impact be?
    Mr. Lyons. Pearlie can tell you about the ERS study and 
offer his own comments. I just would suggest that I think NRCS 
is the lead conservation agency in the Department of 
Agriculture and does a stellar job. I think a merger would be a 
very bad idea.
    Mr. Reed. Okay, About the only thing that we can tell you 
about the study is that it is underway. I haven't--well, I've 
been briefed on it once, but I would like to offer to come up 
and give you a briefing sometime in the next two or three weeks 
on where we are with that particular study. But my own views on 
this merger thing are, No. 1, I fully support the Secretary's 
position, and I think he's gone on record in saying that he 
doesn't think it's a good idea; he doesn't want to do it.
    But, No. 2, I don't think people are looking at this thing 
the right way. The real question is whether or not we need a 
good, solid conservation organization in this country in the 
Department of Agriculture that's devoted to the conservation of 
natural resources. Once I think that question is answered, this 
administrative stuff associated with efficiency and 
effectiveness, and where there may be some overlap in terms of 
responsibility, can be addressed. But I would hate to see a 
major public policy decision being made trying to answer the 
wrong question. And the question should be--should not be, in 
my opinion, should they be combined? The question first should 
be asked, what we need in this country in terms of 
conservation?
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much for your testimony today 
and answering our questions, and for your service to our 
country, and really in view of the amount we export to the 
world.
    Mr. Skeen. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur.
    As a comment and follow-on, if I might take the liberty of 
doing it, and being a conservation engineer, what I was trained 
to do and did for the Department of the Interior and Indians, 
the worse mistake we ever made in this country is when we took 
the field technicians out of the fields that were the 
conservationists and the agronomists and some of the rest, 
because we had some of the best response, I think, on the 
conservation area. When we removed those folks--and I know that 
there was a scarcity of a lot of those people. It was far more 
attractive to be an engineer with Hughes Aircraft or somebody 
else rather than a conservation engineer.
    This country I think has a tremendous reserve, tremendous 
potential, compared to any other country in the world, but 
we've got to do the job of conserving it. We're preaching to 
the choir, but we've made those mistakes, and we're going to 
rectify them now.
    Mr. Latham.
    Mr. Latham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
welcome the panel here.
    I'm a little bit out of breath from running over here.
    Mr. Skeen. Keep in shape.

                                wetlands

    Mr. Latham. Yes, I can keep in shape, that's for sure.
    As you know from my questions and statements last year, we 
have a real environmental problem in Iowa with agricultural 
drainage wells, and we're working very hard to close those 
wells and to provide alternative drainage for the farmers. 
Unfortunately, we've got a ridiculous system where we've got 
four different agencies that have jurisdiction over wetlands 
and mitigation, as you're well aware, with you folks, and EPA 
and the Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife. It's been 
very difficult to get a resolution to the problem, which is 
going to be an environmental disaster very soon.
    I guess my question here to you today, is it the official 
policy or is there a regulation that you have that mitigation 
for wetlands can only come from within the same county as the 
loss?
    Mr. Lyons. I think the goal, Congressman, is the same local 
watershed, is to work within the existing watershed.
    Mr. Latham. So county line has no bearing at all as far as 
your official----
    Mr. Lyons. I believe that's correct.
    Mr. Latham. Could you----
    Mr. Lyons. Yes.
    Mr. Latham [continuing]. Clarify that for me in writing?
    Mr. Lyons. I would be glad to. I would tell you, it 
wouldn't make any sense to limit it to geopolitical lines 
because, of course, watersheds don't know those lines.
    [The information follows:]

[Page 568--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


    Mr. Latham. Well, that wouldn't be a first, though, that 
things haven't made much sense.
    Mr. Lyons. I hope we've made a little bit of progress over 
time. But I'll look into that.

                         clean water initiative

    Mr. Latham. And I'm just--for clarification, I think, for 
the people at home, that there's some question as to what the 
official policy is. I think maybe you hit somewhat on this 
before, but a little different subject: As part of the 
administration's clean water and watershed restoration 
initiative, I see in your budget you're requesting $20 million 
in competitive grant money for local entities. What is a local 
entity for the purposes of the grant?
    Mr. Lyons. Congressman, we are actually in the process of 
implementing what we can implement with the resources we have 
in designing the remainder of the program. Our intent is to 
work with the states, to work with the National Governors 
Association and WGA and others, to design the program. That's a 
long way of saying we want to support local entities in a way 
that's going to ensure the dollars get to the ground and we get 
good conservation in place. Local entities may be governmental 
units; they could be watershed councils; they could be RC&Ds or 
conservation districts. We have not specified at this point, 
and I think that's part of what we're going to explore.
    Mr. Latham. Would a potential entity be something like 
Pheasants Forever or the Sierra Club or anything like that?
    Mr. Lyons. The intent is to try and identify entities that 
can pull together the community, pull together private and 
public interests in a watershed in a constructive way to make 
things happen. Theoretically, a nonprofit could be an entity, 
but our goal in designing this is to provide seed money to get 
positive action in improving watersheds. So if I were to infer 
from your question that we might be funding organizations that 
would be more divisive than constructive, we wouldn't want to 
do that, obviously.
    Mr. Latham. But are you going to have in the regulations, 
then, in your definition of an entity language that would 
eliminate that type of concern for us?
    Mr. Lyons. Eliminate that kind of concern? I think we've 
made clear that our intent was to develop a collaborative 
approach and a productive approach. I couldn't specify what 
entities would or wouldn't qualify at this point because we're 
not to that point yet. But I want to make clear here that our 
goal here is to capitalize on the experiences we've had in the 
past that have been constructive, where conservation districts, 
for example, have pulled communities together, working within 
the community to make for improvements in water quality.
    Mr. Latham. I would just caution you, I think you could 
lose a great deal of support here and elsewhere if you embarked 
on what some people maybe would consider a political agenda 
rather than what would go into conservation.
    Mr. Lyons. I understand that, Congressman. I want to assure 
you that our goal is good conservation, and there's no politics 
associated with that.

                        watersheds--educational

    Mr. Latham. That's very nice. Do you think watershed 
managers and coordinators and environmentalists don't know that 
old and aging systems might need repair and reconstruction 
after a while? I guess the reason I ask is why do we need to 
spend a million dollars on educational assistance to watershed 
sponsors when we already are spending a great deal of money to 
support them? You don't think they're aware that some of the 
systems get old?
    Mr. Clark. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Latham. Somebody?
    Mr. Clark. The thing that we're trying to accomplish by 
educating sponsors and others about these projects is that many 
of them have lived toward the end of their useful life, and the 
people who were involved in decisions that funded and 
participated as sponsors in those projects when they were 
started and constructed have passed on literally. So in many 
cases in the communities people don't know that these projects 
exist; they don't know that they have responsibility for 
operations and maintenance of them. So this is an effort to 
sort of re-educate the community about theirresponsibility 
regarding these local projects.
    Mr. Latham. And you're going to do it with a million 
dollars?
    Mr. Clark. Well, we're going to start with a million, 
hopefully.

                       animal feeding operations

    Mr. Latham. Okay. As you're well aware, as part of the 
administration's clean water initiative, the EPA is going to 
more closely regulate animal feeding operations. In your 
opinion, which agency is best positioned or has the best 
specific expertise in regulating these agricultural operations, 
EPA, NRCS?
    Mr. Lyons. Congressman, I would tell you that on the issue 
of Confined Animal Feeding Operations, as you're aware, EPA 
recently laid out a proposal for consideration. We are working 
within the Department with EPA, and we'll engage in discussion 
about what might be a reasonable approach, the most effective 
approach to achieve the water quality objectives we have. 
There's also been an interest in pulling together a high-level 
discussion among the various entities within the livestock 
community to work with us to talk about ways in which we can 
address this issue.
    As you're aware, the Pork Producers engaged in such a 
dialog and actually put together some guidelines which they 
presented to the Environmental Protection Agency to help 
regulate, if you will, the pork industry and their impacts on 
water quality, and I think they did an outstanding job and 
should be commended for the leadership that they showed.
    We hope we can go through a similar process in determining 
the best way to address this concern. I don't see that there is 
an easy way to get there, but I think it's important that all 
parties be a part of the dialog before we determine who assumes 
which responsibilities or which agencies are going to be 
responsible for which approaches here.
    Mr. Latham. I commend the Pork Producers also for 
initiating the dialog. As you're well aware, it did not include 
a lot of the interested parties who walked away from the table, 
and I'm not sure how that's all going to come down. But I will 
tell you that if you don't find somebody who is responsible, 
then we're going to have the same mess that we have with 
wetlands today, jurisdictional fights, turf battles, regulatory 
overlap, and you can't get an answer from anybody. I would have 
real concerns about not having one entity in charge as far as 
enforcement of the regulations.
    I've had proposals from people at home saying that, because 
of the concern that a lot of people have with local control at 
the county level, zoning, and the State's preemption of county 
initiatives, and then you have the Federal Government come in--
that there is, obviously, real concern as to who's going to be 
in charge or which agency, again, with the experience we have 
with wetlands and mitigation there, when you have four agencies 
that fight over turf all the time, fight over wetlands; it's 
not turf. But it's a real concern.
    I have proposals of people saying that it should go through 
the NRCS because you have people there who are at the local 
level on the ground, the local commissioners; you have some 
State jurisdiction, but you also have the Federal role also. 
What would you think of that? Because it combines--you have 
local input with the current board sitting there; you have some 
State jurisdiction, and you also have the Federal regulations 
for enforcement.
    Mr. Lyons. Well, to be honest, Congressman, it's premature 
for me to answer that because we're in the stages in the 
Department of thinking through the best options and also trying 
to look at the products, the pork dialog, obviously, the debate 
up here that's beginning with different proposals that are 
pending.
    Mr. Latham. Have you thought about that option?
    Mr. Lyons. That particular option?
    Mr. Latham. Yes.
    Mr. Lyons. I can't say that I have sat down and discussed 
it with anybody yet. Certainly it's one to consider, as well as 
others.
    Mr. Latham. But are you aware of the debate as far as the 
local control and the State preemption and----
    Mr. Lyons. Very much so.
    Mr. Latham. Wouldn't that--I'm thinking outloud here. I'd 
like to hear your input. But it did seem to address some of the 
concerns because you do have local input. You have people on 
the ground, farmers that understand the topography, understand 
the watersheds at the local level. You have a State influence. 
I don't know, I'm sure you have trouble getting EPA to give up 
jurisdiction.
    Mr. Lyons. I think Pearlie would like to offer some 
comments on that.
    Mr. Reed. Mr. Latham, of course, I've been on the job now 
approximately three weeks, but I've spent a considerable amount 
of my time, since I've been back at the NRCS----
    Mr. Latham. Do you just move around every year, so that 
there are new people----
    Mr. Reed. I hope to see you again next year. [Laughter.]
    But I've been working with Jim's office, namely, Craig Cox, 
on the very issue that you raise, and we're in the process 
right now of pulling together the appropriate staff work, so 
that we can develop options to take us in the direction that 
the Secretary might want to go as it relates to this animal 
waste issue. So I would say within the next few weeks, if not a 
couple of months, we'll be in a much better position to 
respond.

                            clean water act

    Mr. Latham. Okay, it might be something to consider. I just 
want to re-emphasize--and I guess it hits very close to home 
because I live on a farm, and we have a well, and my family 
drinks out of that, the aquifer that has the ag drainage wells 
going into it, and express the total frustration I have with 
four agencies having jurisdiction over the wetlands situation, 
not being able to get an answer. We have the State money 
available. We have EQIP money available. We have the total 
cooperation of the local drainage districts, the local farmers, 
and the problem that's hanging everything up is the turf war 
going on here in Washington. We are going to have an 
environmental and ecological disaster in north central Iowa 
because a bunch of bureaucrats here are fighting over turf and 
jurisdiction, and it is outrageous, and I just tell you, you're 
threatening the whole aquifer. I'm preaching to the choir here 
because you folks have really bent over backwards, and I want 
to compliment you. But it is extraordinarily frustrating, and 
we tried to resolve this in the Clean Water Act in 1995, so 
that we finally had one entity here that had responsibility for 
agricultural wetlands, that you could finally go one place and 
get an answer.
    We're still fighting this thing, and we're going to have a 
disaster out here that's going to pollute the Oligagla aquifer 
because we've got a bunch of bureaucrats here in Washington 
fighting over turf. And it is outrageous, and someone 
eventually who fought the changes is going to be held 
responsible for it.
    That's all, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Skeen. Mr. Serrano? Ms. Kaptur? Everybody's just 
delightfully happy. [Laughter.]
    I want to thank you for your presentation, and we 
appreciate the work that you do, the problems that exist, and 
we appreciate your being here today. We'll get your budget back 
to you.
    Mr. Lyons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Skeen. So, with that, we'll adjourn.
    [Clerk's Note.--The following questions were submitted to 
be answered for the record.]

[Pages 573 - 884--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]









                           W I T N E S S E S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Baker, J.R.......................................................     1
Clark, L.E.......................................................   529
Dewhurst, S.D....................................................1, 529
Dubey, A.M.......................................................   529
Dunn, M.V........................................................     1
Figueroa, Enrique................................................     1
Jett, Carole.....................................................   529
Lyons, J.R.......................................................   529
Medley, T.L......................................................     1
Reed, Pearlie....................................................   529
Sells, D.D.......................................................   529










                               I N D E X

                              ----------                              

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

                                                                   Page
Aerial Hunting Operations........................................   141
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection................35-36, 61-68, 135-136
Animal Care..............................................41-47, 134-135
Animal Import Centers......................................101, 140-141
Aquaculture.................................................88, 127-128
Beef 97 Survey..................................................131-132
Biography of Administrator Medley................................   242
Biotechnology...............................................21, 104-105
Bioterrorism....................................................137-138
Boer Goats.......................................................   145
Boll Weevil..................................................57-59, 138
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy................................132-133
Brown Citrus Aphid..............................................118-119
Brown Tree Snake.................................................    87
Brucellosis..................................................47-49, 141
Buildings and Facilities......................................... 81-87
Carryover into Fiscal Year 1998..................................   131
Cattle Ticks.....................................................    69
Centers of Excellence............................................   106
Contingency Fund...........................................100-101, 136
Cost Sharing........................................98-99, 139-140, 143
Doris Day Animal League Petition................................134-135
Emergency Animal Disease Eradication Organizations...............   121
Emergency Programs............................................... 88-95
Equine Infectious Anemia Program.................................   120
Explanatory Notes...............................................333-427
Federal/Non Federal Dollars...................................... 98-99
Foot and Mouth Disease...........................................50, 96
GAO Reports and OIG Audits......................................109-118
Golden Nematode............................................128-129, 138
Gypsy Moth......................................................138-139
History of Budget Request.......................................107-109
Horse Protection................................................. 43-44
Imported Fire Ant.....................................30-32, 86-87, 132
Import/Export..........................................102-104, 125-126
Information Systems Aquisition Project........................... 60-61
Institute for international Cooperation in Animal Biologics.....130-131
International Programs...............96-108, 104, 107, 126-127, 136-137
Karnal Bunt....................................8-10, 21-25, 79, 146-147
Kudzu............................................................   139
Legislative Proposals............................................   125
Livestock Conservation Initiative...............................129-130
Mediterranean Fruit Fly......................................51-52, 140
National Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance............... 79-81
National Germplasm Quarantine Center............................84, 140
National Poultry Improvement Plan................................   127
Noxious Weeds.................................................... 55-57
Object Class Data................................................   135
Other Agricultural Appropriations and Non Federal Funds.........122-124
Pay Cost Increases/Employment Cost Reductions...................124-125
Pest and Disease Exclusion.......................................    87
Pine Shoot Beetle..........................................120-121, 128
Pink Bollworm....................................................99-100
Pink Hibiscus Mealybug...........................................   141
Plant Methods Development.......................................105-106
Plum Island Modernization Plan...............................84-86, 140
Poultry, Electronic Surveillance of..............................   127
Psuedorabies..................................................... 52-55
Questions Submitted for the Record:
    Chairman Skeen...............................................41-142
    Mr. Fazio...................................................146-147
    Mr. Bonilla.................................................143-145
Rabies...........................................................   120
Regulatory Enforcement..........................................121-122
Saltcedar Tree...................................................   132
Sanitary/Phytosanitary Standards...........12-15, 19-21, 26-27, 144-145
Scrapie.....................................................68, 141-142
Screwworm................................11-12, 29-30, 33-34, 49-50, 78
Silverleaf Whitefly.......................................101, 138, 142
Stolen Dogs......................................................    42
Trichinae Pilot Certification Project............................   119
Tropical Bont Tick...........................................95-96, 137
Tuberculosis, Bovine............................................. 59-60
User Fees............................................5, 6, 102, 135-136
Vehicles.........................................................   135
Vesicular Stomatitis.............................................   141
Veterinary Biologics............................................130-131
Veterinary Diagnostics...........................................   102
Wildlife Services.............7, 8, 32, 69-71, 73-78, 133-134, 139, 144
Wildlife Services Methods Development............................ 71-72
Witchweed........................................................    55
Witness Statement of Administrator Medley.......................266-292

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

ADP..............................................................   236
Aflatoxin Inspections............................................   221
Agency Resources.................................................   227
Alpha-Amylase....................................................   229
Auction Market Failures.........................................223-224
Biography of Administrator Baker.................................   244
Budget Increases................................................237-238
Budget Request...................................................   228
Canadian Grain Commission........................................   232
Custodial Accounts..............................................226-227
Dealer/Order Buyer Financial Failures............................   222
Electronic Filing..........................................229, 236-237
Electronic Networking...........................................235-236
Electronic Odor-Sensing Instruments..............................   233
Explanatory Notes...............................................493-528
Exported Grain Complaints.......................................217-220
Foreign Travel..................................................233-234
Four Firm Concentration Ratio...................................222-223
Garlic Study.....................................................   229
Generic Sample-Lot Inspection Certificate........................   227
Grain Dust Explosions............................................   217
Grain Facilities.................................................   212
Grain Inspected and/or Weighed..................................213-216
Grower Payment on Comparison.....................................   234
Heavy Metals.....................................................   221
IBP..............................................................   235
Inspection and Weighing Reduction................................   230
Legal Actions....................................................   230
Livestock Producers Complaints...................................   212
Livestock Slaughter.............................................224-225
Other Services...................................................   228
Other USDA Accounts..............................................   236
P & S Reorganization............................................230-231
Packer Concentration............................................. 27-29
Packer Competition and Industry Structure........................   237
Peas and Lentils Standards.......................................   239
Pesticide Data Program..........................................232-233
Pesticide Residues..............................................239-240
Poultry Compliance...............................................   230
Poultry Compliance Complaints...................................221-222
Price Differentials.............................................. 38-39
Questions Submitted for the Record:
    Chairman Skeen..............................................212-240
Reorganization................................................... 34-35
Rye Standards....................................................   239
Sanitary/Phytosanitary Standards.................................    20
Slaughtering and Processing Packers.............................225-226
Streamlining Efforts.............................................   239
Texas Panhandle Investigation...................................234-235
Toll-Free Hotline................................................   221
Unfair Competitive Practices Investigation.......................   234
Unrecovered Losses...............................................   231
User Fees........................................................ 37-38
Violations.......................................................   233
World Health Organization........................................   232
Written Testimony of Administrator Baker........................308-332
Year 2000.......................................................238-239
AMS Obligations:
    ADP Purchases................................................   195
    District of Columbia Increase................................   156
    Foreign Agricultural Service Funding.........................   162
    Market Service Increases.....................................   160
Business Process Reengineering...................................   170
Biographical Sketch--Dr. Enrique Figueroa........................   243
Emerging Markets Programs:
    Eastern European Development Act.............................   172
    Emerging Markets.............................................   171
Explanatory Notes--AMS...........................................   428
Federal Seed Act.................................................   177
Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program:
    Payments to States and Possessions--1998 Projects............   156
    Payments to States and Possessions--1997 Projects............   179
Grading:
    Cotton and Tobacco Reimbursement.............................   194
    Grading Activity Employee Totals.............................   168
    Grading Fees.................................................   169
    Qualified Through Verification--Pilot Program................    37
    Qualified Through Verification Program--Description..........   157
    Qualified Through Verification Program--Applicants...........   209
    Qualified Through Verification Program.......................    15
    U.S. Manufactured Equipment Exported to Europe...............   197
Limitation on Administrative Expenses............................   191
Market News:
    AMS Home Page................................................   196
    Market News Budget Request...................................   148
    Market News Program--Report Changes..........................   170
    Market News Program--State Programs..........................   195
Marketing Agreements and Orders:
    Alternative Milk Pricing and the Proposed Rule...............   204
    Milk Marketing Order Listening Sessions......................   204
    Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact...........................   203
    Peanut Non-Signer Program....................................   194
    Pistachio Marketing Order....................................   204
National Laboratory Accreditation Program........................   171
Organic Certification:
    Organic Certification Program Table..........................   162
    Organic Certification--Comments..............................    10
    Organic Certification Program--Implementation................   155
    Organic Certification--Target Dates..........................     6
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act..........................   189
Pesticide Data Program:
    Pesticide Data Program--Microbiological Testing..............   207
    Pesticide Data Program--Participants.........................   151
    Pesticide Data Program.......................................   192
    Pesticide Data Program--Funding Requests.....................    18
Pesticide Rocordkeeping Program..................................   165
Plant Variety Protection Act.....................................   196
Questions Submitted to AMS.......................................   148
Reports:
    OIG Report Findings..........................................   160
    Status of OIG and GAO Requests...............................   162
Research and Promotion...........................................   175
Research Cooperative Agreements..................................   177
Section 32:
    Section 32--Commodity Purchases..............................   185
    Emergency Surplus Removal....................................   183
    Export Purchases.............................................   184
Standardization Program..........................................   167
Tobacco Funding..................................................   168
Transportation Services:
    Bulk Grain Facilities Study..................................   197
    Free Trade With Mexico.......................................   179
    Jones Act....................................................   203
    Missouri River Project.......................................   178
    Transportation Services--Regulatory Actions..................   194
    Transportation Services......................................   156
Wholesale Market Development.....................................   172
Witness Statement--AMS...........................................   293

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service

Accountability of Technicians Time...............................   685
American Heritage Rivers Funding.................................   701
American Heritage Rivers Initiative............................538, 543
Animal Agriculture...............................................   702
Animal Feeding Operations........................................   570
Assistance of Public and Private Groups for Agriculture Literacy 
  Programs.......................................................   717
Biographies:
    Anne M. Dubey................................................   722
    Danny D. Sells...............................................   781
    James R. Lyons...............................................   719
    Pearlie S. Reed..............................................   720
Bonus Payments...................................................   694
Chesapeake Bay Program...........................................   639
Civil Rights.....................................................   709
Clean Water Act..................................................   572
Clean Water Action Plan Public Input.............................   717
Clean Water Initiative:
    FY 1999 Funding..............................................   683
    Local Entities...............................................   569
    Regulatory Changes...........................................   554
Conservation Compliance and Conservation Operations..............   575
Conservation District Program Activities.........................   577
Conservation Farm Option Program:
    Funding for FY 1997 and 1998.................................   656
    Participating States.........................................   644
    Program Increase.............................................   703
Conservation Operations Accountability...........................   537
Conservation Operations Funding Increases........................   683
Conservation Pilot Project Results...............................   621
Conservation Practice Standards..................................   686
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.........................   540
Conservation Reserve Program:
    Enrollment of Productive Soils...............................   561
    Final Rule...................................................   658
    Introduction of New Plant Species............................   552
    Rental Rates.................................................   542
Cooperative River Basin Surveys and Flood Plain Management 
  Studies........................................................   586
Demonstration Project............................................   638
Digital Orthophotography.........................................   580
Digital Soils Data Base..........................................   693
Earth Team.....................................................645, 717
Emergency Supplemental Requests..................................   549
Emergency Watershed Protection Program Current Projects..........   599
Emergency Watershed Protection Program History Table.............   611
Environmental Quality Incentives Program:
    Allocation Changes...........................................   703
    Allocation Formulas..........................................   650
    Allocations--FY 1998.......................................649, 698
    Approved Practices...........................................   711
    Changes in Ranking Formula...................................   546
    Eligible Acreage.............................................   704
    Funding Increase.............................................   684
    Funding Increase...........................................700, 701
    Funding Priority Areas.......................................   699
    Implementation at Local Level................................   651
    Technical Assistance Funding.................................   555
    Technical Assistance Needs...................................   652
Evaluation of Conversation Operations and Watershed Programs.....   647
Explanatory Notes FY 1999........................................   761
Farmland Protection Program....................................644, 685
Field Service Center Computer Hardware and Software Purchases....   658
Field Service Centers............................................   646
Flood Prevention Project PL-534..................................   587
Flood Prevention Project PL-534 Current Status...................   609
Flood Prevention Project PL-566..................................   588
Flood Prevention Project PL-566 (Deauthorized)...................   606
Flood Prevention Project PL-566 New for 1997.....................   611
Foreign Assignments..............................................   658
Forestry Incentives Program......................................   644
Funding for Western Ridge........................................   708
Geographic Information Systems.................................579, 647
Grazing Lands Assistance for FY 1999.............................   642
Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative..........................641, 702
Grazing Lands Specialists........................................   641
Grazing Lands Technology Institute...............................   642
Great Lakes Program..............................................   639
Gulf of Mexico Program...........................................   640
History Table for FY 1999........................................   643
Hydrologic Unit Areas............................................   637
Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico....................................   640
International Activities Technical Assistance Costs..............   640
Lake Champlain Project...........................................   640
Loss of Prime Farmland...........................................   548
Merging FSA and NRCS.............................................   565
Merging TA for Watershed Accounts into Conservation Operations...   553
Methane Generation Model.........................................   578
Mitigation Banking...............................................   574
National Appeals.................................................   575
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research   620
National Estuary Program.........................................   639
Nationwide Professional Network..................................   686
Natural Resources Inventory....................................659, 692
Non-Federal Watershed and Rangeland Coordinators.................   635
Non-Federal Watershed Coordinators...............................   690
Non-profit and Community Action Groups...........................   687
Northwest Salmon Recovery........................................   700
NRCS Cooperative Agreements......................................   659
NRCS Staffing Levels.............................................   646
Opening Remarks By Mr. Reed......................................   536
Opening Remarks By Under Secretary Lyons.........................   529
Osage County Pilot Project.......................................   646
Other Services--Subobject Class 25.2.............................   656
Partnership Grants...............................................   689
Partnership with Fish and Wildlife Foundation....................   574
Pending Civil Rights Cases.......................................   685
Plant Materials Centers:
    Alderson, WV Status..........................................   584
    New Plant Releases...........................................   582
    Operation Costs............................................581, 694
    Status of Royalty Collections................................   584
Policy Coordination Council......................................   659
Presidential Water Quality Initiative Funding....................   636
Priority Watersheds..............................................   697
Program Jurisdication............................................   556
Questions Submitted for the Record:
    Chairman Skeen...............................................   573
    Ms. DeLauro..................................................   709
    Mr. Bonilla..................................................   711
Rangeland Conservation Expertise.................................   693
Recovery of Funds................................................   680
Regional Project Allocations.....................................   637
Regional Projects................................................   639
Reimbursement--Federal and Non-Federal.........................620, 635
Resource Conservation and Development:
    Areas........................................................   697
    Federal and Non-Federal Assistance...........................   634
    Loans........................................................   636
    Projects.....................................................   634
    New Area Distribution........................................   562
    Operating Plan for FY 1998...................................   531
Rural Abandoned Mine Program.....................................   644
Service Center Implementation Team...............................   691
Small Watershed Program Loans Status.............................   640
Snow Survey Telemetry Costs......................................   659
Soil and Water Conservation Districts............................   690
Soil Management..................................................   547
Soil Quality Measurement.........................................   653
Soil Surveys:
    Completion of Survey in 1997 and 1998........................   579
    Funding and Staffing.........................................   693
    Program Reimbursements.......................................   580
    Local Surveys................................................   553
Staff Year Table.................................................   576
Statement of James R. Lyons......................................   723
Statement of Pearlie S. Reed.....................................   755
Summary of Time Spent on Farm Bill Programs......................   685
Technical Assistance for All Conservation Programs...............   578
Technical Service Centers and Regional Offices and Institutes....   577
Timber Receipts on Forest Service Lands..........................   557
University of Wisconsin ``Adoption'' Report......................   638
Urban and Suburban Assistance....................................   717
Urban Resources Partnership....................................558, 652
Urban Resources Partnership Funding..............................   700
User Fees......................................................539, 551
Water Quality Demonstration Projects...........................637, 639
Water Quality Hydrologic Unit Area projects......................   639
Water Resources Assistance.......................................   696
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Obligations............   610
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Recreational Purposes..   611
Watershed Planning and River Basin Studies Status................   585
Watershed Planning State and Local Funding Activities............   585
Watershed Projects Listing.......................................   586
Watersheds--Educational..........................................   570
Wetland Conservation Mitigation/Easement Sites...................   568
Wetland Delineations.............................................   691
Wetland Determinations...........................................   691
Wetland Determinations in Data Base..............................   575
Wetlands.........................................................   566
Wetlands Reserve Program.........................................   573
Wetlands Reserve Program Technical Assistance....................   575
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program:
    Allocations..................................................   707
    Financial Assistance Requested and Allocated.................   655
    Funding Decrease.............................................   684
    Spending.....................................................   653
Year 2000 Compliance.............................................   690