[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2000
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico, Chairman
JAMES T. WALSH, New York
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr.,
Washington
HENRY BONILLA, Texas
TOM LATHAM, Iowa
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
SAM FARR, California
ALLEN BOYD, Florida
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, 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.
Henry E. Moore, John J. Ziolkowski, Martin P. Delgado, and Joanne L.
Orndorff, Staff Assistants
________
PART 3
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS AND
MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS
Page
Natural Resources Conservation Service........................... 1
Marketing and Regulatory Programs................................ 359
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Agricultural Marketing Service
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-251 O WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman
RALPH REGULA, Ohio
JERRY LEWIS, California
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia
TOM DeLAY, Texas
JIM KOLBE, Arizona
RON PACKARD, California
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama
JAMES T. WALSH, New York
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma
HENRY BONILLA, Texas
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan
DAN MILLER, Florida
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr.,
Washington
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM,
California
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
TOM LATHAM, Iowa
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
KAY GRANGER, Texas
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JULIAN C. DIXON, California
STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
NANCY PELOSI, California
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
NITA M. LOWEY, New York
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
ED PASTOR, Arizona
CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
CHET EDWARDS, Texas
ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
Alabama
JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
SAM FARR, California
JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
ALLEN BOYD, Florida
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2000
----------
Wednesday, February 24, 1999.
NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
WITNESSES
JAMES R. LYONS, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
PEARLIE S. REED, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
DANNY R. SELLS, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
ANNE M. DUBEY, DIRECTOR, BUDGET PLANNING AND ANALYSIS DIVISION, NATURAL
RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
DENNIS KAPLAN, OFFICE OF BUDGET AND POLICY ANALYSIS, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Skeen. Good afternoon. Today we have with us the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, as led by Chief Pearlie
Reed and Mr. Jim Lyons, the Under Secretary for Natural
Resources and the Environment.
This subcommittee appreciates the work that NRCS
accomplishes in preserving and maintaining the health of our
Nation's soil, and you are under a lot of pressure by a budget
request that seeks significant funding increases and adds new
programs, while at the same time proposes significant staffing
decreases.
We have read your prepared statement. So we would ask that
you include possibly the highlights. Your written statements
will be appreciated and will be printed in full for the record.
I would like for you now to go ahead and introduce your panel.
Opening Remarks by Undersecretary Lyons
Mr. Lyons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
pleasure to be here today.
Mr. Skeen. It is a pleasure having you. Sorry we were
holding you up.
Mr. Lyons. Not a problem at all.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to be here, and I
want to apologize in advance for a cold that is beating me in
this battle, but we will do the best we can today.
We have with us today, of course, Pearlie Reed, Chief of
NRCS; Danny Sells, Associate Chief, Anne Dubey, who heads up
our budget shop, and Dennis Kaplan from the Office of Budget
and Program Analysis in USDA. It is a pleasure for all of us to
be here today.
One other thing I want to do, Mr. Chairman, before I get
started, I wanted to send regards from an old colleague and
mutual friend, Jack Ward Thomas, who I saw last week. He wanted
me to say ``hello'' to you as a fellow Aggie.
Let me start, Mr. Chairman, by saying that, first off, I
have been up here now six years making these presentations to--
--
Mr. Skeen. Has it been that long?
Mr. Lyons. It has been that long, Mr. Chairman.
But I dare say that a great deal has changed in that period
of time. I think one of the things I am most proud of during my
tenure in office, having worked first with Paul Johnson and now
with Pearlie Reed, is the outstanding work that NRCS has done
to advance the conservation mission of USDA; and, also, I
think, to distinguish itself as the central Federal agency for
conservation on America's private lands. The private land
conservation challenge is a tremendous one, and I think NRCS,
in partnership with conservation districts, does an outstanding
job in promoting good land stewardship across the American
landscape. I am very proud of the work they do.
Farmers, ranchers, and communities across the Nation can
turn to NRCS and receive assistance on a wide spectrum of
conservation efforts, encompassing things like nutrient and
pesticide management, wetlands conservation, watershed
planning, flood prevention, water quality improvement,
developing and maintaining wildlife habitat, and, of course,
soil conservation, the ``bread and butter'' of the agency.
To meet that demand, NRCS delivers a wide variety of
financial and technical resources to its customers. But I want
to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, of course, the core of NRCS has
been, and continues to be, its people, who are outstanding and
doing a tremendous job in working in partnership with
landowners across the Nation. It is the NRCS delivery system in
the field that makes all this work happen, and I can you tell
you, from many meetings with colleagues in other departments
and agencies, that it is the envy of those Federal agencies. It
is the field conservationists who have earned the trust of
farmers and ranchers across the Nation through the sound advice
and technical assistance they provide.
What I would like to do is just take a moment and provide a
little more detail on how the NRCS field delivery system
provides conservation technical assistance to meet the agency's
mission. As I noted, more than 70 percent of the land in the
contiguous United States is privately owned, including
virtually all of the Nation's farm and rangelands. NRCS is the
only Federal agency whose major purpose is to provide
conservation technical assistance to private landowners across
the country. The agency's focus is on helping landowners and
users achieve natural resource and environmental goals while
maintaining productive and profitable operations--operations
that, of course, are vital to rural communities across the
Nation, as you know very well from New Mexico.
Conservation Operations is the foundation for most of the
agency's activities. Conservation Operations represents a
longstanding and historical partnership of interests, all
working together in a concerted way toward a sustainable,
productive Nation. Within that Conservation Operations budget,
there are certainly activities and functions that I want to
highlight.
Conservation technical assistance, of course, is the
cornerstone for most agency activities, and our Fiscal Year
2000 budget request is $585 million, a small increase of only
$37 million for technical assistance. Conservationists on the
ground are under increasing demand for their services, as they
tackle new responsibilities while retaining the commitment to
the community for providing basic assistance to landowners.
Throughout the Nation, NRCS conservationists facilitateand
enable local action. Technical assistance funding ensures the presence
of these individuals and promotes voluntary conservation activities.
With respect to workload, one area of particular concern is
the issue of water quality problems associated with animal
feeding operations. I believe you are aware, Mr. Chairman, that
in September 1998, as called for in the administration's Clean
Water Action Plan, USDA, working with the Environmental
Protection Agency, jointly released for public comment a draft
Animal Feeding Operation--AFO--strategy that establishes
national performance expectations for all animal feeding
operation owners and operators. The strategy presents a series
of actions that USDA and EPA will take to minimize water
quality and public health impacts of the nearly 450,000 AFO's
in the United States.
The Fiscal Year 2000 budget proposes to increase
conservation technical assistance available to AFO operators by
$20 million, and we all recognize that is not going to quite do
the job, but it is an investment we begin to make as we try to
refine and complete the AFO strategy--a strategy, I would
emphasize, which is focused really on voluntary approaches to
dealing with water quality problems, as opposed to the stick
approach that EPA has used so often. I think we have made a
great deal of progress in demonstrating that a voluntary
approach is the way to get the job done, and we want to be able
to demonstrate that as we move forward.
Additional support for the Clean Water Action Plan in the
budget includes $20 million for competitive partnership grants
that will be used to strengthen the leadership of locally-based
organizations, such as conservation districts and watershed
councils, to enable them to provide coordination of locally-
initiated conservation efforts. Finally, a further increase of
$3 million would be used by NRCS for additional monitoring to
help target resources and document baseline conditions and
performance.
Another issue of concern is the issue of global climate
change. We want to learn more about global climate change, and
the conservation technical assistance increase includes $12
million for soil studies and inventories to provide baseline
soil data to assess the impacts of Federal programs on soil
carbon stocks. There is also $3 million proposed to fund
demonstration and pilot projects to test various carbon
sequestration methods.
The increases are partially offset, though, by a decrease
of $31 million for a transfer of base funding to the proposed
Support Services Bureau, which will essentially fund the
administrative support services common to county-based
agencies. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, from meetings that we
all had with the Secretary, we are doing our best to come up
with the most cost-efficient and effective approach to
providing administrative services for our field-based agencies,
and that involves NRCS, FSA, and the Rural Development
Agencies. Earlier this month, Secretary Glickman gave us
direction to move forward with implementation of this strategy,
and this is an investment in that central support service.
Some other activities encompassed by conservation technical
assistance include continuing work on highly-erodible land
conservation. Although the 1985 Farm Bill provided basic
direction for conservation compliance, it is important to
remember that that work continues. Our experience has shown
that approximately 20 percent of producers will change their
conservation systems each year, requiring NRCS technical
assistance.
In the area of wetland determinations and certifications,
NRCS is involved in determining areas subject to Swampbuster
and response to requests from farmers who plan activities that
may adversely impact wetland. NRCS certifies wetland
determinations only upon request, when clients propose to alter
the hydrology within a wetland. In Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998,
landowners requested about 40,000 such certifications, and we
expect that number to increase annually.
I also want to mention the Grazing Lands Conservation
Initiative briefly. You and I have talked about this many
times. It is a very successful program that is really
grassroots-driven, and has helped NRCS better define the
resource needs and benefits generated when grazing lands are
improved. In Fiscal Year 1999, NRCS was able to continue to
support grazing lands conservation coordinators in each State,
and we think it is critical to continue that investment.
I will briefly mention, also, in a timely way, since Ms.
Kaptur is with us, the work we are doing in the urban
conservation arena, another area that we have focused on as
work has increased in the urban and suburban areas. Natural
resources don't recognize urban and suburban boundaries, as you
know, Mr. Chairman, and to ignore their interaction within a
watershed wouldn't do either justice. The watershed approach to
resource conservation has been widely acclaimed and highly
successful, and I am proud to say that we have taken the lead
in working across the landscape in rural, suburban, and urban
areas to begin to examine ways in which we can rehabilitate the
health of watersheds and address all those factors that
contribute to the decline of water resources.
We continue our work in areas such as soil surveys and
plant material centers. And I would make one note, Mr.
Chairman, since the Forest Service is the other agency I deal
with. We expect a pretty severe fire season this year, and the
plant material centers have been instrumental in providing
information and guidance and seedstock to help regenerate areas
that are severely impacted by fire. I hesitate to say this, but
we expect the fire season to start in the Southwest any day
now.
Other appropriated discretionary accounts in our budget are
the Watershed Surveys and Planning, Watershed and Flood
Prevention Operations, and a new program, Debt for Nature, for
which we are going to seek authorization this year. The budget
includes $5 million to implement this program. Really what this
program is intended to do is provide technical and financial
assistance to USDA borrowers with cashflow problems who also
have lands that require conservation treatment. In exchange for
debt forgiveness on their lands, program participants, on a
voluntary basis, could agree to enroll environmentally-
sensitive lands into the conservation easements. This was a
recommendation that came directly out of USDA's Civil Rights
Action Team report regarding establishment of a Small Farm
Commission, which was chaired by a former colleague of yours,
Harold Volkmer. He did an excellent job.
We continue our support to the RC&D's, the Resource,
Conservation, and Development organizations, which, of course,
have done a tremendous job as well.
NRCS also administers, on behalf of the Commodity Credit
Corporation, several cost-share programs, including those set
forth in the 1996 farm bill. We also provide
technicalassistance to individuals and groups participating in the CRP
program, which, of course, is administered by the Farm Service Agency.
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP,
provides a single voluntary program of flexible technical,
financial, and educational assistance to farmers and ranchers
who face serious threats to soil, water, and related natural
resources on their agricultural lands. Assistance is provided
in a manner that maximizes environmental benefits per dollar
expended while assisting producers with issues such as local
environmental laws or community-identified environmental needs.
In Fiscal Year 1999, we received $174 million in the EQIP
program, just under the $200 million that was authorized. We
had requested $300 million, and, again, have included in our
budget a request to increase the authorization to provide $300
million for this extremely valuable program. The program has
been extremely successful. We received nearly 55 thousand
applications in Fiscal Year 1998 for the program, and we expect
the demand to grow considerably for use of this program.
I should also mention the Wildlife Habitat Incentive
Program, authored by your colleague, Senator Cochran, provides
for implementing wildlife habitat practices to develop upland
wildlife habitat, wetland wildlife habitat and work dealing
with threatened and endangered species. This program, too, has
been extremely successful, and we are going to seek additional
funds for the program in Fiscal Year 2000.
Finally, I want to mention the Farmland Protection Program.
On Sunday, Secretary Glickman and I had a chance to visit with
the Natural Resources Committee of the National Governors
Association to address issues associated with livability and
protection of open space. To be quite candid, Mr. Chairman, I
was amazed at the bipartisan interest and support in securing
funds to provide for the protection of open space and to reduce
the impacts of urban encroachment on prime agricultural land.
Speaking for the governors, Governor Christine Todd Whitman
from New Jersey, in whose State taxpayers recently passed a
billion dollar initiative to provide $100 million a year to
provide for farmland and forestland protection, governors from
Oregon, Washington, Wyoming, and other States, all spoke to the
important need to invest in farmland protection at the
Governor's conference.
The Fiscal Year 2000 budget that we have submitted includes
a total of $77.5 million for farmland protection in two
components: $50 million in the new discretionary fund that
would come out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, part of
what we are calling our Lands Legacy Initiative, and $27.5
million in CCC funding under proposed legislation that we will
submit to the committee.
We also administer, of course, the WRP program, the Wetland
Reserve Program, which has been extremely successful. In Fiscal
Year 2000, we are going to propose to enroll almost 200,000
acres and essentially reach the 975,000-acre cap that was
called for in the program. Technical assistance funding needed
for the larger enrollment effort would be about $18 million
this Fiscal Year.
Let me close, Mr. Chairman, by pointing out something that
I know you recognize, but I want to highlight as well. Through
the 1985, 1990, and 1996 Farm Bills, working in partnership
with the Congress, I think we have developed a tremendous
toolkit for conservation--tools or programs that can be
extremely useful in achieving individual landowner or community
or national conservation goals. They run the gamut from land
retirement programs, like CRP and WRP, to the technical
assistance we provide through conservation technical assistance
or the work of RC&D's, to cost-share programs, like those we
administer through EQIP and WHIP.
We have the tools we need to get the job done, Mr.
Chairman, but I think the key to conservation is partnership,
and the key to partnership is having people on the ground to be
able to work with landowners and communities and other agencies
and entities to get the job done.
I started out by saying the key to success of NRCS has been
its people. I think it is critical that we have the people to
do the job and using these tools to apply conservation on the
landscape. I want to share with you my concern that we have a
tendency to invest in programs as a Nation, but are less
willing or less anxious to invest in people, who are really the
key to delivering and implementing those programs. There are
some gaps in our budget, that I am sure the Chief can help you
understand, that may limit our ability to put people on the
ground, to put in place those conservation tools.
I think it is critical that we make that investment. Mr.
Chairman, as you know from your history and your professional
experience, that knowledge and expertise is critical to helping
landowners understand how to achieve their long-term
conservation goals. We need to have the people out there to get
that job done, as well as the program dollars to put those
conservation practices in place.
So we look forward to working with you as always in trying
to put together a budget that achieves those long-term
conservation goals, but I would implore you that this year we
take a hard look at what it is going to take to invest in the
people who are going to apply those tools and work in
partnership with landowners and conservation districts and
others across the Nation to ensure that we have put in place
the kind of conservation legacy of which we are all proud.
Thank you.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you.
Mr. Reed.
Opening Remarks by Mr. Reed
Mr. Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you indicated
earlier, you have my statement, but I do have a few comments I
would like to make.
Mr. Skeen. Well, we will just take them right on
straightaway from you.
Mr. Reed. Thank you.
Mr. Skeen. We appreciate it.
Mr. Reed. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am pleased to
be here representing the men and women of the NRCS and our
conservation partners. Our people in the field, working with
farmers and ranchers, are the NRCS. Our employees, including
conservation district employees, are some of the most capable
and dedicated employees you will find anywhere.
Mr. Chairman, I do have one major concern, and that concern
is we, the NRCS, are being asked to do too much. In addition to
the basic soil and water conservation work on cropland,
rangeland, pastureland, the policymakers in this country are
putting more on our plate; namely, the massive livestock waste
issue, global climate change, and a host of emerging water
quality problems. Simply put, we are being overcommitted.
The reason so much is being asked of the NRCS is because so
much is being asked of our farmers and ranchers here in
America, and we, the NRCS, have a reputation of getting the job
done. But I would like to assure you that we will, whatever we
are asked to do, we will, in the most efficient and effective
way possible, do all that we can do.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here with you
today.
[The prepared statements and biographies of James R. Lyons
and Pearlie S. Reed and biography of Danny D. Sells follow:]
[Pages 8-40 -- The official Committee Record contains additional
material here]
Mr. Skeen. Thank you. I think what I will do is start with
this questioning, and then I will go to Ms. Kaptur for her
introductory statement. Go ahead and make that, Marcy. Go
ahead.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just
wanted to welcome our witnesses today, and thank Mr. Lyons and
Mr. Reed, and all of your associates from NRCS, for the fine
work that you and your colleagues do, not just here in
Washington, but all over the country. I will agree with Mr.
Reed on that.
I have some questions, and I apologize for being about
eight minutes late. I was involved in a meeting on, of all
things, poultry waste management, with some of our fellow
colleagues, and the problems we are having in the State of
Maryland. So I apologize. I think NRCS may be the solution, at
least part of the solution, to that.
So I do have some questions, Mr. Chairman. I will withhold
those for the moment.
staff reductions
Mr. Skeen. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur.
Let me start with, Under Secretary Lyons, the President's
budget proposes a significant funding increase for NRCS; yet,
the staffing level has declined by a thousand people. How will
this staffing reduction affect the current conservation
programs? And, also, what types of personnel actions have to be
considered to reduce the staff by a thousand people? Your
program does not require them or----
Mr. Lyons. Well, let me take a shot at that, Mr. Chairman,
and then I will yield to the Chief, who can, I think, offer
more detail.
Mr. Skeen. Well, I want to know what he is going to do with
those thousand people he is losing?
Mr. Lyons. Well, I am concerned about the loss of those
people. In large measure, that loss would be associated with
the lack of reimbursements for programs we implement through
the CCC. Part of the problem lies with a cap on the amount of
reimbursement that can be provided from funds in the Commodity
Credit Corporation, and that impacts our ability to do
everything from provide technical assistance for the CRP
program to other programs as well. I honestly believe we need
to address that and work together to find a way in which to do
so. It is an issue that we have to address, Mr. Chairman. If we
don't, we face loss of FTE's, and FTE's translate to
conservationists on the ground doing the job that we want them
to do.
conservation philosophy
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Reed, OMB has laid out some pretty ambitious
goals for your agency, but you are the Chief, and we recognize
you as such. So we would like to hear from you on two matters.
We want your comments on how well you believe the Federal
Government is doing in meeting the mission on private lands
conservation and your philosophy on conservation in general.
Mr. Reed. With your permission, I would like to do the
latter first.
Mr. Skeen. You can take it any way you want to. We
appreciate it.
Mr. Reed. My philosophy as it relates to conservation is
that soil and water conservation are as important to our
country, in my opinion, as education, healthcare, and national
defense. I think that every acre of land in this country and
every bucket of water must be used wisely. I think it is good
public policy in this country for us to ensure that we maintain
our conservation infrastructure that we have out in the
countryside with State conservation agencies and conservation
districts, so that we have this basic safety net that is needed
to provide the appropriate science and technology in the form
of technical assistance to our Nation's farmers and ranchers
and other land users.
As it relates to how well we are doing, I think we are
doing exceptionally well, but we could do better. The men and
women that we have out in the countryside I alluded to earlier
are the most dedicated and capable people you will find any
place. There is one thing, though, that really bothers me, and
that is, our people, most of them out in the countryside, work
uncompensated 10, 12, 16 hours a day, Saturdays, Sundays,
holidays. When I tell some folks this,they tell me that you
need to tell them to go home, and if they don't go home, you need to
take the appropriate action. And my reply to that, is that you take
action against folks who don't want to work, not against those that do.
So, again, getting back to my agency and our people being
asked to do a lot, we don't mind it at all, but we want some
help to get the job done.
Mr. Skeen. Well, I understand. That is why I am very
surprised that we are offering a thousand reduction in
personnel. I come from the old school, too, that I think it is
those people on the ground out there that are doing the Lord's
work as far as the philosophy of what we can do to maintain our
status as a world producer of food--because we take care of our
soil and we take care of our water, and conservation is
absolutely essential. So I am a little concerned about the loss
of that thousand people, but I understand why you are doing it.
I will second your philosophy on conservation. It is the
folks on the ground out there who take it as their life's work
to make sure that we conserve our resources, particularly our
water and land resources. That is the best base we have.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Kaptur.
loss of arable lands
Ms. Kaptur. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask either Mr.
Lyons or Mr. Reed, should the American people be concerned with
the diminishment of arable lands in this country?
Mr. Lyons. I think to some degree we should be, Ms. Kaptur.
I think a number of factors come into play, and one is the loss
of prime farmlands because of growth. The other is because of
poor management, because of the inability to invest in proper
stewardship, the loss of our lands in portions of the Southwest
and other parts of the country, where additional investments I
think would pay off.
A large concern raised by the American Farmland Trust and
others is the fact that prime farmland in and near urban areas
is disappearing at an alarming rate, which is going to result
in increased costs associated with production, and I think
could ultimately have a big impact on our capacity to meet the
Nation's needs, as well as protect the quality of life that we
have all come to associate with areas such as your district and
Mr. Skeen's and others. We need to tackle that issue.
Ms. Kaptur. How would you answer this: People might say,
well, you know, we are really moving into an area; we will lose
a third of those who produce pork in this country perhaps over
the next year, if Congress doesn't act; we have lost much of
our sheep production, lamb production, in this country; we have
cattle people in trouble; our grain prices are at historic
lows, but really we are moving into an age where we are going
to industrialize agriculture, so all Ohio eggs will come out of
one major producer now with over a million laying hens. We will
just have a few companies producing chickens, poultry, for
market, and we will aggregate into only a few feedlots the
majority of meat that will be raised for consumption in this
country, and we will basically shut down rural life as we known
it. So why should we bother?
We won't see fish in the sea anymore. We will really have
these fish farms that we build all over the country. We are now
into an era of industrializing agriculture. So why should we
care about arable lands? Why should we care about the
fundamental resource base that provided the wealth that built
this country in its first two centuries? How would you explain
to the American people that arable lands are important, if they
are?
Mr. Reed. Mr. Secretary, let me take a shot at that. I am a
student of history. If you take a look at what has happened to
those civilizations that did not take care of the land, those
civilizations no longer exist. What is being projected for the
future may, in fact, come to pass. But, from my perspective,
when I take a look at what is happening to the land, the fact
that once we lose arable land, you can't replace it; if you
take a look at the increases in population in this country, and
you think about the issue of basic food security, I think at
this point in time it would be unwise for us to speculate on
whether or not we will need our good agricultural lands in the
future.
Ms. Kaptur. You don't think we can import all our food, Mr.
Reed?
Mr. Reed. I would not want to go to bed at night thinking
about that as being a reality.
Ms. Kaptur. It is happening.
Mr. Lyons. Ms. Kaptur, if I could just make one point--I
think not only should there be concern about the loss of arable
land, but there should be concern about the impact that has on
our society. We began as an agrarian nation. Consolidation and
efficiency is a double-edged sword. Consolidation in
agriculture certainly has had a big impact on certain
industries, and the Secretary, of course, launched a review of
the impacts of consolidation on the meat packing industry and
other industries, and I know he is personally concerned about
that.
I share that concern, but I also would emphasize that the
loss of small to medium-sized farms, family farms, across the
American landscape can have a tremendous impact on America as a
society and in those rural communities that we have, I think,
all come to enjoy, and some of us grew up in. It would be a
tremendous loss to see American society change so dramatically,
if we fail to invest in, or at least recognize ways in which we
may, in fact, be accelerating the demise of small to medium-
sized farms.
That is one reason that the Secretary called for the
creation of the Small Farms Commission, which former
Congressman Volkmer chaired. Many of the recommendations--in
fact, most of the recommendations--that the Commission
generated are being implemented under the guidance of Deputy
Secretary Rominger. So we take this issue very seriously, and
are very concerned not only about impacts on arable land, but
impacts on the social fabric of this Nation.
backyard conservation program
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Reed, I wanted to ask you about the
Backyard Conservation Program that NRCS launched. I was very
happy to be a part of that last year. I am wondering what has
happened as a result of that.
Mr. Reed. Well, the Backyard Conservation Program has been
a resounding success. We have had requests for the publication,
as well as requests throughout the countryside for conservation
education, assistance in areas in which we haven't had that
kind of assistance before. We see an enormous increase in the
awareness and importance of conservation, not only what the
urban folks can do in their own backyards, but what is also
being done out in rural America as it relates to conservation.
So it has been a great educational tool, and I think it has
done a lot toadvance the importance of soil and water
conservation in this country.
aging watershed structures
Ms. Kaptur. I notice in your testimony, Mr. Reed, you
reference that 350,000 nutrient management plans will be
required for operators of livestock operations, and 450,000
AFO's that will be required to be addressed by the Clean Water
Action Plan. An additional 11,000 small watershed dams
constructed under two authorities will reach the end of their
design life. You made your comments to this committee a few
moments ago about not having enough resources to do the job. Is
this the area in which you feel that your local service people
will be over stressed?
Mr. Reed. Yes, absolutely. As it relates to the animal
feeding operations issue, we are, as we speak, putting together
some options for Mr. Lyons and Deputy Secretary Rominger that
will lay out, based on our current estimates, what the workload
is; what is the legitimate USDA/NRCS-type investment; what
should the investment of the conservation partners be; what
should the private sector do. Once we pull all that together,
we will be in a much better position to talk about how we could
break that workload down and deal with it.
But when you take a look at the basic work that we have
agreed with others that are engaged with us on this, the
workload is in itself massive for us, and we have some figures
on that that we would be happy to follow up and provide for you
on the record.
[The information follows:]
Animal Feeding Operations Workload
NRCS is developing an Animal Feeding Operation Implementation Plan
and will have the plan completed by May 1999. Based on the October 1998
Partnership Workload Analysis, NRCS estimates that about 331,000 animal
feeding operations with less than 1,000 animal units will need
assistance in installing a waste storage system and adopting a nutrient
management plan. The infrastructure investment needed to control water
pollution from animal feeding operations is enormous and NRCS is
committed to helping minimize the financial stress on family farmers.
If all 331,000 animal feeding operations installed a waste storage
system, the financial assistance costs could range as high as $13.6
billion over a ten-year implementation period. Even with this financial
assistance, the producer costs could amount to as much as $4.5 billion.
Depending on the role of state, local, and conservation district
employees as well as the private sector in assisting farmers, NRCS
could require an additional $2.5 billion dollars in funds to support
technical assistance over a ten-year period. These figures may change
as the 1997 Agricultural Census data becomes available and as new
workload data is collected. In addition to the financial and technical
assistance provided through NRCS, other agencies in USDA have important
contributions to make in addressing the water quality problems related
to animal feeding operations. Examples of contributions from other
agencies include: producer education and research through the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, research
by the Agricultural Research Service, and loans administered by the
Farm Services Agency.
Mr. Reed. Regarding the issue centered around these 10,000
dams, up until about 1960, under the Public Law 534 and 566
programs, we built about 10,000 dams all across America, but
concentrated in some States more so than others. The primary
purpose was to control flooding. but also erosion control and
municipal water supplies, the whole nine yards.
But the bottom line is that, prior to 1960, all the dams
that we built were designed to function for 50 years, and they
are becoming 50 years old. Now, since 1960, we have been
designing and building dams to last 100 years. So we don't have
a problem just yet with them, but what is happening is that
these dams have done what they were designed to do, and now
they are filling up with sediment. We are finding all kinds of
stuff in this sediment--some of the old pesticides that we used
in cotton back 20, 30, 40 years ago, and the list goes on and
on and on.
But, more importantly than that, from my perspective, I see
this as a potential major public health/public safety issue,
because in the floodplain below a lot of these dams we have a
lot of urban development. The roads and bridges were designed
and built based on the hydrology in these watersheds with these
structures fully functioning. We also have public water
supplies, sewage treatment plants that are located beneath some
of these structures. I believe that if we don't do what is
needed to address the problem, then it is just a matter of time
before we start to have some major, major safety/health
problems out in the countryside.
About four weeks or so ago, Mr. Lyons and I met with the
Secretary and Mr. Witt from FEMA, and this issue was raised
there. We are following up with him and the appropriate others
to make sure that we capture the problem and lay it on the
table for the public policy folks to take a look at and help us
decide what needs to be done.
ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE
Ms. Kaptur. My final question on this round: What is the
relationship between those needs we have just discussed on that
page of your testimony and the $866 million appropriations
request for this next Fiscal Year? Are you asking for
additional assistance for that in this budget or is that
exclusive of this request?
Mr. Reed. It is exclusive of the budget, with the exception
that there is a million dollars in the request, under Public
Law 566, for educational assistance relative to the aging
watershed infrastructure problem.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Thank you very much for that
clarification.
Mr. Lyons, could you tell me, in your original
administration budget request that went up to OMB, did you ask
for $866 million for the year 2000?
Mr. Lyons. I believe we asked for a little bit more than
that, Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. How much did you ask for?
Mr. Lyons. I am sure someone has that number.
Mr. Reed. Can we send it up to you?
Ms. Kaptur. Just ballpark, was it----
Mr. Reed. It was, for Conservation Operations, it was
$287,000 more than what the budget shows--no, $287 million.
[Laughter.]
Two hundred and eighty-seven million more than what the
budget shows. That is for conservation technical assistance.
Ms. Kaptur. All right.
Mr. Reed. The only other one that I remember that comes to
mind is, for the aging watershed infrastructure, based on what
we knew back in July, when we made our initial Department
estimates, we asked for $250 million to address the aging
watershed infrastructure problem.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. I thank you. Any additional
budgetary information you wish to give us, I would appreciate,
based on your original submission to OMB.
Mr. Lyons. We can provide you that table.
[The information follows:]
[Page 47 -- The official Committee Record contains additional
material here]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mrs. Emerson.
STAFF REDUCTIONS IN THE FIELD
Mrs. Emerson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reed, first of all, let me say, I have very much
respect for all of the NRCS personnel with whom I work and my
staff works in my district in southern Missouri. So my hat is
off to you. It is a special team of people that you all have.
But let me just ask for a clarification. When you and the
chairman were discussing staffing reductions, and the figure
1,000 was mentioned, are those 1,000 people in the field or are
they here in D.C.?
Mr. Reed. In the field.
Mrs. Emerson. Okay.
Mr. Reed. Can I respond to that a little further?
Mrs. Emerson. You may. Please.
Mr. Reed. The reason it would be mostly in the field is
that, as you know, since 1993, we have gone through substantial
streamlining, downsizing. Mr. Lyons and Paul Johnson, and when
I worked with the two of them before Mr. Johnson left, we put
at the top of our priority list taking everything that we
possibly could out of everything above the field first. We have
done that, and we will continue to take whatever we possibly
can above the field. But there is nothing left, and the only
place where we can make cuts wouldbe at the field level.
Mrs. Emerson. This is probably an unfair question to ask,
but has NRCS staff been reduced more proportionately than some
of the other offices within the USDA?
Mr. Reed. When you take a look at the importance of our
work, yes. [Laughter.]
AFO STRATEGY
Mrs. Emerson. That is a pretty good political answer. All
right. Well, thank you. That was pretty good. We should run you
for office. [Laughter.]
All right, Mr. Lyons, this question goes to you, please:
You make a comment on page 9 of your testimony--hold on; I have
to put my glasses back on here--that says, with regard to
animal feeding operations, specifically, that you can never
fully meet the workload, if you will, about providing technical
assistance to producers as they try to comply with your animal
feeding operation strategy. Now if you all can't commit to
providing the necessary technical assistance, then how are our
producers--how can we expect them to comply properly?
Mr. Lyons. Well, as you may be aware, the AFO strategy that
we have developed, and floated for public comment, and
discussed across the Nation, is primarily focused on and
emphasizes voluntary approaches. We firmly believe that is the
way to get the job done. I think producers would agree. They
would rather have that option than the regulatory option.
But, as is often the case in Washington, good policy and
the budget to implement it don't always go hand-in-hand. I
think part of what we are asking here today is that you help
work to recognize and address what could be a deficit in terms
of the resources needed to help these producers.
It really is a relatively small handful of the 450,000
producers who are of sufficient size that they may actually
fall under the regulatory framework of EPA, at least in
accordance with the strategy we have devised. I think many
producers, particularly working together in common watersheds,
can address these water quality concerns collectively in a way
that will avoid their having to worry about Clean Water Act
compliance issues. But we are going to need additional
resources.
Mrs. Emerson. So do you think maybe we ought to delay the
rules until NRCS can supply the assistance necessary? Would you
be supportive of that?
Mr. Lyons. No, I don't know that I would be supportive of
that, Congresswoman, because I believe that we do have clean
water concerns across the Nation that need to be addressed. I
think we need to work together, the administration and the
Congress, to generate the resources. We are looking at phasing
this in over time. We know current resources are inadequate,
and we believe we do need additional resources. But I think we
have an obligation, and I have yet to meet a producer, with few
exceptions, who doesn't want to help ensure that these good
landowners are good land stewards and that they are able to
meet those goals. That is why we have used the delivery
mechanism we have, the voluntary approach, to get there.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF AFO IMPACT
Mrs. Emerson. Is there any kind of an economic analysis as
to how the rules might impact producers economically?
Mr. Lyons. I don't know that I have that information in
hand.
Mrs. Emerson. If you have done one, then may I ask that you
provide it?
Mr. Lyons. Sure, we can provide that for you.
[The information follows:]
Economic Analysis of AFO Strategy
Since the Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations
(UNSAFO) is not regulatory in nature, it does not require an economic
analysis. Nevertheless, the Strategy calls for EPA and USDA to
collaborate on evaluating the overall costs and benefits of the
Strategy. In addition, if EPA promulgates a rule expanding its
authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate animal feeding
operations, an economic analysis will have to be prepared by EPA
because of laws and executive orders governing the need to assess the
economic impact of regulations on the private sector.
On the voluntary side, NRCS is developing an Animal Feeding
Operation Action Plan that complements the Strategy. A Draft
Implementation Plan is scheduled to be completed in May 1999. Although
no definitive economic analysis of the Implementation Plan has been
made to date, preliminary national estimates of the financial and
technical assistance needs have been made. Based on the October 1998
National Partnership Field Workload Analysis, NRCS estimates that about
331,000 animal feeding operations with less than 1,000 animal units
will need assistance in installing a waste storage system and adopting
a nutrient management plan. The infrastructure investment needed to
control water pollution from animal feeding operations could be
substantial and NRCS is committed to helping minimize the financial
stress on family farmers. If all 331,000 animal feeding operations
installed a waste storage system, the financial assistance costs could
reach $13.6 billion over a ten-year implementation period. Even with
this level of financial assistance, producer costs could amount to at
least $4.5 billion. Depending on the role of state, local, and
conservation district employees as well as the private sector in
assisting farmers, NRCS could require an additional $2.5 billion
dollars in funds to support technical assistance over a 10 year period.
These cost estimates may change as new data on AFO numbers and workload
becomes available through the 1997 Agricultural Census and the 2000
National Partnership Field Workload Analysis. In addition to the
financial and technical assistance provided through NRCS, other
agencies in USDA could have important contributions to make in
addressing the water quality problems related to animal feeding
operations. Examples of contributions from other agencies include:
producer education and research through the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service; research by the Agricultural Research
Service; and loans administered by the Farm Service Agency.
AFO STRATEGY LISTENING SESSIONS
Mrs. Emerson. Because I know there were some meetings held
around the country, bringing the stakeholders in, have your
folks actually gone out to ranches and farms and talked to
people? It is just that I haven't gotten any specific feedback
from my people that they have been approached or this issue has
been discussed with them?
Mr. Lyons. Yes. In fact, we held a dozen listening sessions
across the country and invited producers to come in and speak.
I attended a number of those. My colleagues at EPA--Glenda
Humiston here, who is my Deputy for Conservation, participated.
I think we got a healthy helping of farm reality in the
discussions we had.
I should point out that what we are issuing is a strategy.
We are not issuing specific rules. EPA would be responsible for
issuing any rules to comply with the Clean Water Action Plan.
So I don't think there has been an economic or cost-benefit
analysis on rules yet, but I will talk to my colleagues and
make sure whatever information we have on potential economic
impacts we provide you.
IMPACT OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Mrs. Emerson. Well, that would be very helpful because
oftentimes that is the last thing that is thought about when
new rules and regulations are imposed on producers, small
business people, et cetera.
Let me just move very quickly--I have a question with
regard to global climate change, and specifically, I want to
refer to a study that was recently completed by the Sparks
Company, on behalf of the corngrowers, the Farm Bureau, and
other producer organizations, that predicts about a 50 percent
decline in farm income, doubling of production costs, et
cetera, et cetera. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
submit that study for the record, if I might.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 51-53 -- The official Committee Record contains additional
material here]
Mrs. Emerson. But, anyway, let me ask you--I think the
Department has been asked on numerous occasions also about any
kind of economic analysis that you all might have done with
regard to climate change and how it would impact agriculture.
Do you know if that has been done yet?
Mr. Lyons. I can't answer that. I will have to check with
Keith Collins, who is our Chief Economist, and provide you
whatever information.
Mrs. Emerson. Okay. I would be very grateful if you could,
in fact, do that.
[The information follows:]
Economic Analysis for Global Climate Change
Global climate change has been a topic of growing concerns to USDA
as well as many other Federal departments. The work you are asking
about is being handled by the Global Climate Change program that is
attached to the Office of the Chief Economist. We understand that the
Economic Research Service is assisting in this effort. We would
encourage the committee to contact the Global Climate Change program
office for any specific information that is desired.
From a weather variability standpoint, the following is drawn from
the March 2nd testimony presented by the Chief Economist to the Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development and Related Agencies:
``Weather and agricultural production. Last year's heavy rain and
flooding in California and drier than normal conditions in the Southern
Plans and South highlighted the role of weather in crop production and
farm financial conditions. The current La Nina weather event is having
a limited effect on U.S. agriculture, with the possible exception of
the December freeze in California that severely reduced citrus
production. La Nina is not expected to be a major factor affecting
global or U.S. crop production this year. However, weather forecasting
remains imprecise and the possibility remains that adverse weather
could cause a major shortfall in world crop production and a strong
increase in prices from current levels.''
Mrs. Emerson. That is all. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Five-and-a-half years waiting to ask this
question--Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Chairman, you knew my desire to be here at
this moment. I have been in Congress five-and-a-half years, and
I have been waiting for this moment. I have more questions than
this book is thick [indicating]. [Laughter.]
But I am delighted to be here.
I wanted to share with the committee what hit me. I fly
every week out of Dulles Airport to San Francisco Airport. I
get on a United flight, and then the flight attendants tell us
we are going to go 2,419 miles. I look out there and I see the
great Mississippi Basin and the Great Plains and fly over the
Rockies and the Grand Canyon and into the West, into the
incredible resources of the Sierra Nevadas, Yosemite National
Park, come through the great agricultural basin of the San
Joaquin Valley into the coastal zone of California. It hit me,
as I look out that window, that all of the discussions about
land in the United States--our park system, our national forest
system, nothing compares to the power that this committee has
on land use in America.
This is really our land use committee. What we are talking
about in this subject matter is proper management of the land,
proper best management practices, and how we incorporate that
into user practices, so that the soils don't erode; so that the
water doesn't become polluted. I think it is a bigger picture
than that. It is also about sustainable agriculture. You can't
have just land preserved, if you can't make a buck off what you
are trying to do with the land.
But the way we make bucks off land in California,
unfortunately, is just urban sprawl. We cover over our
agricultural lands to build boxstores like the Costcos and Wal-
Marts. The land that we have just killed grows products that
are grown in America that we export abroad, and the stores that
we build import products made somewhere else. So we are not
only killing our land, productive land; we are killing our
productive labor force with importing things that are made. So
this committee and this issue about how we use our land is to
me just the most important thing we can be dealing with in
Congress.
My question essentially goes to the point, I started in
politics as a county supervisor dealing with land use. Then I
was in the State legislature, and I sat on a natural resources
committee and carried a lot of education. I came to Congress,
and not until I arrived here had I ever heard of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service. I know you are doing all these
things, but I don't know if a lot of people really who make the
daily decisions know about them.
My question goes to, do you have any model ordinances that
you have gotten adopted by counties and local governments
regarding best-use practices?
ADOPTED ORDINANCES OF BEST-USE PRACTICES
Mr. Reed. The answer to that is no, and the reason the
answer is no is that we have worked with local units of
government, and, basically, did most of the work as it relates
to soil and water conservation, but we never took credit for
it.
Mr. Farr. But the suggestion is--and I think it goes to all
the questions here about, why should we be doing all this sort
of heavy parrotting of the land without teaching the land users
how to do it themselves? Why aren't we teaching local
governments how to fish? I mean, how to care for the land
themselves. I don't know why we need to buy out land that
should not be farmed; it should be zoned that way. We don't
allow people to build or tear down riparian corridors just
because they privately own it. Local government says, no.
Private ownership doesn't allow you to destroy valuable soils.
Private ownership doesn't allow you to pollute. Just because
you own the land, you can't dump toxics there.
So we, obviously, have this sense in America, and I think
in the private sector that owns all this land that I am talking
about, that it is cared for, but the policing of that has to be
done at the local level. We can't do that from Washington.
Mr. Reed. Mr. Farr, virtually all of the work of the NRCS
is really working with the farmers and the ranchers and other
decisionmakers, providing them with the appropriate technical
advice, counsel, and in some cases financial assistance, so
that they can make the decisions out on the land. Virtually
everything that we do is done in a voluntary mode in support of
State and local governments.
FARMLAND PROTECTION EFFORTS
Mr. Farr. Why should we be giving aid to the farmer
directly; why should we be giving aid to the local county
government, if they aren't incorporating within their
management practice sort of a building code of best practices?
Why don't we insist that they put land management plans in the
law in order to get the benefit? There has got to be a carrot
and a reward here.
Mr. Reed. Most of the farmland protection programs, most of
the land use zoning ordinances, laws, and regulations out in
the countryside are based on the NRCS technical guide,
technical rules, technical specifications that we have
developed in a voluntary mode, and these local units of
government adopt those as the basis for making those decisions.
Mr. Farr. I would hope you are right, Mr. Reed, because if
you are, then we don't need to do all this stuff, because it
would be done at the local level. Once we have been there, we
never have to go back. It is going to be taken care of.
Let me just switch because, obviously, if we had done it
all, we wouldn't need the Farmland Protection Program, and I
was very pleased to hear Mr. Lyons talk about going to the
Governors Conference and having that incredible reception. What
was it like? They really want us to participate in it, don't
they?
Mr. Lyons. There is tremendous enthusiasm for protecting
open space and farmland protection. As you know from your own
State, the Federal Farmland Protection Program which we
administer is oversubscribed manyfold.
Mr. Farr. Can I ask you some questions about it? First of
all, I want to commend the President for putting money in. At
the same time, I want to wonder why it is such a measly amount.
Seventy-seven point five million comes out to $1.5 million per
State, and California, in my Salinas Valley, it is $20,000 an
acre. So all the money we give to California buys sixty acres
of land. That is not farmland protection.
Mr. Lyons. Well, I would certainly wish we could put more
in the account, Congressman, but I would point out that that
money leverages additional resources. Our goal isreally to be
able to partner with States that have put money into programs, with
communities that have put money into programs, so as to amplify the
benefit of that Federal investment. It is really seed money to make
those things happen.
requests for farmland protection
Mr. Farr. What are the requests you have in hand right now
from the States asking for the farm? Do you know that?
Mr. Lyons. I am sure we do.
Mr. Farr. Do you know how much they are requesting?
Mr. Lyons. Do you have those numbers [speaking to his
staff]?
Mr. Farr. Well, you can get those for me.
Mr. Lyons. We can provide those for the record, if that
would help.
[The information follows:]
Farmland Protection Program
Through fiscal year 1998, twenty states had requested
$198.3 million to FPP funding. NRCS committed $33.4 million in
Federal funds to 19 States for farmland protection efforts.
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPP funds Proposed FPP funds Acres
Fiscal year requested acreage available expected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996........................................................ $130.6 176,000 $14.3 76,756
1997........................................................ 6.5 10,000 1.9 4,969
1998........................................................ 61.2 99,000 17.2 45,658
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 198.3 285,000 33.4 127,383
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
conservation reserve enhancement program
Mr. Farr. I hear the bells going off.
One is: How many States have approved conservation reserve
enhancement programs?
Mr. Lyons. I believe it is a half dozen, six.
Mr. Farr. That is all?
Mr. Lyons. That is right.
Mr. Farr. How many acres have enrolled in these programs
across the country?
Mr. Lyons. We are conferring.
Mr. Farr. Well, we are spending millions of dollars, and we
have got six programs. Do you know how many----
Mr. Lyons. I don't know that I can tell you the acres. We
will get that information for you, the acres that have enrolled
through the CRP program.
[The information follows:]
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
Currently, seven states have approved Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Programs (CREP). They are Maryland, Minnesota,
Illinois, New York, Oregon, Washington, and, as of March 1,
1999, North Carolina. Secretary Glickman and Governor Hunt of
North Carolina signed the North Carolina Memorandum of
Agreement on March 1. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programs
are voluntary and must address environmental problems of
Federal and or State significance caused by agricultural
activities. States must request to enter into a Memorandum of
Agreement, for a CREP proposal, with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to address these environmental problems.
To date, approximately 811 contracts, covering 13,494 acres
have been enrolled in CREP programs across the country.
buffer strip initiative
Mr. Farr. Can you also give me how many acres have been
enrolled nationwide in the Buffer Strip Initiative?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, we can provide that easily.
[The information follows:]
Buffer Strip Initiative Enrollments
Approximately 930,000 acres of buffers--265,000 miles--have been
enrolled nationwide in the Buffer Strip Intiative.
release of afo strategy
Mr. Farr. And do you know when the animal feeding operation
strategy will be released?
Mr. Lyons. We hope shortly. We have actually completed the
work that we need to do, and we are working with EPA to resolve
some remaining differences on the strategy, but we hope very
shortly.
Mr. Farr. And have USDA and EPA done an estimate on the
funds necessary to meet the current demand for the EQIP program
as well as the expected increase in demand that may occur as a
result of the Clean Water Action and the AFO strategy?
Mr. Lyons. I can provide you that information for the
record. It is going to be substantially more than what I think
we are requesting right now. The $100 million increase in EQIP
certainly will help in terms of our efforts to address clean
water strategy.
[The information follows:]
EQIP Funding Needs To Carry Out CWAP
NRCS has done some preliminary estimates on the funds needed to
meet the current demand for EQIP. We have identified the demand to be
about 3 times the available EQIP funds since the beginning of the
program. In FY 1997, there were over 57,000 applications from farmers
and ranchers requesting $552 million in financial assistance; about
$175 million of this demand was met by EQIP contracts. In FY 1998,
about 55,000 applications were received for $490 million in financial
assistance; about $154 million of this demand was met by EQIP
contracts.
The demand comes from producers who are indicating they are
prepared to invest some of their own funds, change some of their
farming techniques and apply conservation practices to improve natural
resource conditions on land they control. Not all of these producers
would be considered as high priority; some may be ineligible. But on
the whole, this gives a good perspective of the demand. As the program
becomes better known, we expect the demand to increase.
Considering this demand, and without considering the impact of the
Clean Water Action Plan and the Animal Feeding Operations Strategy,
NRCS believes that an annual funding level of $400 million would be
justified. To suggest higher at this time would be unrealistic
considering the current capacity for NRCS to adequately implement the
program with a greater workload. The Administration's $300 million
budget request is a good first step to meet the demand while being able
to implement the program in an exceptional manner with current staff
resources.
Successful implementation of the Unified National Strategy for
Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) owners and operators could require the
delivery of technical and financial assistance to more that 331,000
AFOs nationwide by the year 2009. Delivery of this technical and
financial assistance through voluntary conservation programs; primarily
EQIP, will need to be greatly accelerated to achieve this goal,
especially considering that NRCS is only able to assist roughly 10,000
AFOs per year through on-going programs.
If our conservation partners and private sector vendors are not
able or willing to substantially increase the technical and financial
resources they can devote to the effort, USDA will need to increase
annually by at least 3 times its technical assistance funding and by at
least 10 times its financial assistance funding over the FY 2000
requested funding levels to meet the potential demand.
Mr. Farr. And will you also send me how much out of the
EQIP program of USDA's resources are going to the Colorado
River Salinity Control Program?
Mr. Lyons. We would be pleased to do that.
[The information follows:]
EQIP Funding of the Colorado River Salinity Control Program
The following EQIP funds were used in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming
to reduce the salinity in the Colorado River. The FY 1997 and 1998
funds were actually obligated, and the FY 1999 funds have been
allocated for use in the basin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Education Technical
Fiscal year assistance assistance assistance Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 (obligated)................................ $2,812,000 $ 26,000 $315,000 $3,153,000
1998 (obligated)................................ 2,808,000 113,000 685,000 3,606,000
1999 (allocated)................................ 3,029,000 114,000 737,000 3,880,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Farr. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish you
would give me two days, because I love this.
Mr. Skeen. Well, we will see if we can't work out
something. [Laughter.]
We will suspend now and take this vote, and be right back.
I think this is the last vote for today, hopefully.
[Recess.]
Mr. Skeen. The committee will come to order.
Mr. Bonilla.
american heritage rivers initiative
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Chairman.
Good afternoon, everyone.
I am anxious to get into discussion about the shortage of
manpower and the expansion of programs in just a second. But,
first, I want to ask a question, Mr. Lyons, the request--for a
report we included last year in our report language to ask for
the activities of the USDA on the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative, and the report did request that the AHRI report
come in to the Committee by December of 1998. Do you know when
we can expect to receive this report, Mr. Lyons?
Mr. Lyons. That report is currently in clearance,
Congressman, and we expect to get it up to you shortly. We
apologize for the delay.
Mr. Bonilla. So you think in a matter of weeks perhaps, 30
days, something like that?
Mr. Lyons. I certainly hope so. It shouldn't take very
long.
Mr. Bonilla. I would appreciate that. I appreciate your
attention to that.
Also, in light of that and in light of what we have heard
here today, especially with Mr. Reed saying, appropriately so--
I wrote down that his quote was, ``Being asked to do much with
too little.'' In light of the fact that there is a request for
an additional $204,000 for the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative in Fiscal Year 2000, I am concerned where this money
might be coming from. In other words, is there a possibility
that something that you are already working on that is very
important is going to get shortchanged. Initially the
administration stated that there would be no new funds for the
AHRI program. So where is this money going to come from, and
what program could get shortchanged?
Mr. Lyons. Well, I will take a shot at that, Congressman.
The investments we have made in the American Heritage Rivers,
which I believe come out of Conservation Operations, by and
large, are, in my mind, minimal. The potential payoff is
tremendous. We have only allocated a few FTE's to this effort.
The reason I think it is a wise investment is because
Ithink it affords us an opportunity to coordinate water quality and
watershed activities along designated rivers and really to amplify the
benefit of working with other agencies and their resources to work with
those communities to realize their conservation goals along those
waterways.
One could argue that $200,000-or-so could be invested
elsewhere, but I would tell you that I am a firm believer in
working with communities who have a desire and seek the
assistance that government can provide them. I think that is an
important and appropriate role. I think through American
Heritage Rivers, we are going to learn a lot about how we can
work with communities to encourage their collaboration with
adjacent communities, with other agencies, and I think there is
going to be tremendous payoff that we may use in other places.
Mr. Bonilla. So, again, could you tell me where that money
would come from?
Mr. Lyons. I believe it comes out of the Conservation
Operations account. The estimates I have before me,
Congressman, were----
Mr. Bonilla. In other words, who is going to get
shortchanged by this amount of money? I realize in the big
scheme of things it is minuscule, but you are talking a couple
of employees that you could have somewhere else.
Mr. Lyons. Well, I can't point to a specific place they are
going to come from, but I think we are going to try to ensure
that the impact on any program is going to be minimized. I
think we can guarantee that.
Mr. Bonilla. As you know from last year--we had a talk
about this as well at the hearing, and I was concerned about
it. Let's take, for example, I cover 29 counties in south and
west Texas, but I live in San Antonio. If any of you have been
there, you know that we have developed a River Walk very
nicely, a conservation program, environmental assessments, the
whole nine yards. The community is very happy with it. It was
done, believe it or not, without American Heritage Rivers
Initiative involvement. There are countless other projects
around the country that are environmentally sound. They have
been done efficiently. They have been partnered with Federal
Government programs and have worked very well.
Yes, I have had a problem with American Heritage Rivers
Initiative because I see these things that have occurred
already, and I don't understand, for the life of me, why we
need another layer of bureaucracy that involves not just USDA,
but 12 other Federal agencies. Just so you know where I am
coming from on this.
Mr. Lyons. Well, let me respond, if I could, and just say I
think the San Antonio situation is a good example of what other
communities would like to mimic in terms of the investments
they would like to make in their waterfronts. Unfortunately,
many communities don't have the resources or wherewithal to
attract the private investment, such as San Antonio did, that
really, as you know, rejuvenated downtown and really has become
a tourist attraction and brings a lot of resources into the
community and a lot of tax dollars into local government.
I think we would like to use that example to try to help,
with a minimal investment of Federal resources, other
communities realize the goals that they seek. I think in the
rivers that we have identified there is tremendous opportunity
to do that, and, ultimately, hopefully, shift the financial
responsibility over to the private sector. We are certainly
looking for ways in which private dollars can amplify the
minimal investment that we will make through Federal resources.
Mr. Bonilla. And a final note on that, and then we will
move on. That was, in fact, the result of a great initiative by
former Mayor Henry Cisneros with the business community, and it
was done very nicely. It is something that we hold in high
regard, and we are very proud of back home, but it was, again,
that local initiative. It is not a wealthy area at all, but it
was just the initiative and thepersistence of those who wanted
to make it happen in the right way that prevailed in the end. That was
even before American Heritage Rivers Initiative was even discussed.
regional offices
I want to move on now to something else. The NRCS regional
offices. Are the regional offices vitally needed to effectively
deliver programs and accomplish the mission or NRCS in
assisting landowners with their conservation needs? Again, this
is tied into some of the frustrations that are being expressed
here today about manpower.
On page 17-7 of this year's budget, the note states that it
is one of the things that regional offices were intended to do,
is to, quote, ``reduce operating costs.'' How does the creation
of an additional layer of bureaucracy, if you will, reduce
operating costs and help you with your personnel problems?
Mr. Reed. Mr. Bonilla, I am, as we speak, reevaluating our
situation with regional offices, but I need to go back and tell
you why we established those, going back four or five years
ago, and the intent. The intent of the regional offices was, in
fact, to help us be more efficient and effective, in addition
to providing the appropriate focus that is needed at the
regional level on issues, resource issues, that cross State
boundaries.
But, initially, at these regional offices, what we did was
we took the 56 or so business offices that we had in this
country, where we had anywhere from 15 to 42 people, abolished
all of those, established six of those with approximately 17
people, and that was an integral part of our streamlining plan
for reducing the administrative support. We figured that we
could do it out of 6 locations far more efficiently than we
could out of 56. So that was one component of the regional
offices.
Mr. Bonilla. What was your net reduction, then, on
manpower?
Mr. Reed. That was a part of our overall agencywide
initiative to cut our administrative staff by 50 percent. We
are about to reach, although we are going into the
administrative convergence, which is another issue. But that
was one.
The next thing that Chief Johnson, Jim, and I wanted to do
was that, at that point in time, we had a lot of oversight
reports and criticism coming from the Inspector General, coming
from other places--and we can produce those reports for you--
basically saying that we were not providing cross-State,
regional kind of oversight in dealing with issues. Some of the
Inspector General--IG--reports, as an example, showed that,
when you crossed a river, one county to the next, they found a
different set of standard specifications, those kinds of
things, and that land on one side of a State line was being
treated different in terms of wetlands kinds of issues. So we
recognized the need to beef up our oversight and evaluation-
type activities. So we ended up putting about four or five
people in each of the regional offices to do that.
Then the other thing that we did there is that in each and
every State we had a State administrative officer; we had a
deputy and/or an assistant State conservationist; we had three
or four program managers. We felt at the time--and we still
feel this way--that those functions we did not have to have in
each and every State. Again, that was a part of our efforts to
try to cut the total number of folks we were investing in that
kind of work by approximately 50 percent. So those folks ended
up in the regional office. That, coupled with a regional
conservationist, is what the regional offices were about.
I can tell you that right now some of the functions that
are at the regional offices are functions that we are going to
have to carry out irrespective of where it is carried at. I
think as USDA deals with the administrative convergence issue,
then we have to decide what we can or what is appropriate for
us to do in addressing the regional office issue.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Reed. Mr. Lyons.
Mr. Lyons. If I could just point out, just to set the
record straight in terms of how our staffing levels play out,
under the 1999 budget, we currently have 139 individuals in
regional offices, which compares to 9,274 in the field and
other areas. So we have a very small staff that is helping try
to coordinate and improve the efficiencies Pearlie addressed of
work by addressing these issues at the regional level.
I also want to note, in part responding to a question that
Mrs. Emerson raised earlier, NRCS has cut its total number of
employees by about 18.8 percent since 1993. The Washington
office was reduced by 40 percent. So we have made an extra
effort to try to make sure we kept people on the ground and
took disproportionate number of cuts in the Washington staff,
so as to make sure we had people on the ground who could do the
job and try to minimize the administrative overhead that
exists.
epa budget request for afo
Mr. Bonilla. I have a different area I want to cover now,
Mr. Lyons. A program here that was brought up a little earlier
that we touched on, I understand your concerns about the
exponential expansion of your workload which could occur due to
the implementation of the animal feeding operation strategy for
the regulation of livestock operations. We see that there are
some additional monies directed toward this effort in the
Administration's budget. Do you know if any of the money was
included in the EPA budget for the implementation of these
requirements which are being imposed by EPA? I am trying to
find out if EPA is being totally responsible for these costs,
since they are coming up with these regulations.
I know you may not have that in front of you, but I am
raising this issue.
Mr. Lyons. Well, I don't have those numbers in front of me.
I want to point out again, though, we are working on the
strategy in our regulations, just as a point of clarification;
these are not rules that we are issuing. I know that EPA has
some funds built into their Fiscal Year 2000 request. I would
have to get the details for you and submit it for the record,
if I could.
Mr. Bonilla. I would appreciate that.
[The information follows:]
EPA Budget Requests for AFO
The President's FY 2000 budget includes funding for EPA programs
that can be used to implement the Animal Feeding Operation (AFO)
Strategy. In FY 1999, as part of the Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP),
the Administration requested and Congress provided almost a doubling of
funding for EPA's section 319 Nonpoint Source grant program, for a
total of $200 million. for FY 2000, the Administration has again
requested $200 million for section 319 grants to help implement the
CWAP, including the AFO Strategy. Another available program is the
Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF), which can provide below-
market-rate loans to nonpoint source management projects, consistent
with a state's nonpoint source management plan. The FY 2000 request for
the CWSRF is $800 million. For FY 2000, the Administration has also
submitted a legislative proposal, as part of its budget request, to
allow states to use up to 20 percent of their CWSRF capitalization
grant to provide grants for implementation of nonpoint source and
estuary management projects. This proposal could provide as much as
$157 million for these grants in FY 2000, if legislation is enacted.
AFO nonpoint source management projects are eligible for funding from
these programs. Each state chooses which projects receive funding under
both section 319 grants and the CWSRF.
new funding areas
Mr. Bonilla. I guess one final thing, Mr. Chairman, if I
could: In light of the reductions you just talked about and the
workloads that the NRCS has, in asking for these new
conservation technical assistance funding areas, such as $31
million for the Clean Water Action Plan--and I won't get into
all the details here--$15 million for soil carbon sequestration
research, and reduction of greenhouse gases. I know that there
is an indication that this is a mandate that you have to comply
with, but I think that is in question. Three million dollars of
this would be for the Climate Change Technology Initiative; $5
million to fund 20 full-time equivalents, FTEs, staff for
Community-Federal Information Partnerships, which is part of
something called the Livability Initiative.
All these things sound great, and I understand that
sometimes decisions are made at a higher paygrade about what
the priorities ought to be, but in light of the fact that you
all are stretched so thin already, I wonder if this is
troubling to you that all of these programs I just cited here
add up to $51 million. Does it trouble you to see all these
things thrown at you?
Mr. Lyons. Well, I will try to answer that and tell you
that, frankly, I don't view all those things as being thrown at
me. Maybe I am volunteering to accept some of these
initiatives, in part because I think one of our jobs is to
promote innovation and identify new ways in which we can
improve our delivery systems and tackle challenges that we
face.
The investments we are making in global climate change and
livability are, granted, minimal. I wish we had more resources
to make those investments, as well as cover our base programs.
But I think we can learn a great deal through the research and
the evaluations we do on the global climate change, as well as
I think we can do a great deal to help communities plan for
their future through the investments we make in the Livability
Initiative. These are largely minimal investments, but the
potential payoff that comes of learning from these investments
I think makes them worthwhile. That is really why we are trying
to make those investments.
We don't have a big budget. These are not significant
investments, but I think they are important.
Mrs. Emerson. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Bonilla. I would be happy to yield, Ms. Emerson.
Mrs. Emerson. Mr. Lyons, except for the fact that, if you
add all those up, together it adds up to the salaries of the
thousand people that you all have to let go in the field who
still have projects that they haven't continued or must
continue to improve upon, or that they have just begun in other
areas. So I guess what I am saying is you are starting a bunch
of new programs at the expense of a thousand people who provide
a very valuable service at the ground level. You all have also
said that you were going to have to do a lot more with a lot
fewer people.
Mr. Lyons. That is fair criticism, Congresswoman. I would
suggest, though, from my point of view, we ought to get fair
reimbursement for the work we already do through the CRP
program and CREP and related programs, and that is why we have
asked for a lifting of the section 11 cap on CCC-supported
funds, so that we get what we deserve there. So I don't see
that as an expansion of programs. I think it is just
reimbursement for the work we do and an opportunity to make
some minimal investments to see if there aren't other ways in
which we can improve our delivery systems and the effectiveness
of our programs. That is just a different point of view.
Mr. Bonilla. Just a final comment, Mr. Chairman, I know I
am a little over my time here. I am one of those unusual people
that came straight out of the private sector into this job a
little over six years ago. In a dream world you can think of
all these initiatives that sound wonderful, and you want to try
to fund them all, but in real life, generally, you have budgets
and you have to make priorities. Say, if you have 10 items, you
have got to pick the top 8. Maybe you don't have any money for
that beyond eight.
I am trying to suggest here is for us to look at what is
really the most important thing that we need to do here and be
realistic about the dollars that we have in the budget. That is
where I am coming from.
Thank you, gentlemen, very much.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Boyd.
technical assistance versus enforcement
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and, Secretary
Lyons and Mr. Reed, and your staff, for being here.
I am a new member of the committee, and I think it is fair
for you to know a little bit about where we are coming from. I,
like Congressman Farr, have been looking forward to this
meeting today. The reason I have been looking forward to it is
because I spent most of my professional life dealing with the
old Soil Conservation Service, now called the NRCS. Probably in
the area that I come from in north Florida, most of the farms
there would not be viable agricultural entities if it wasn't
for the work that has been done hand-in-glove with the old Soil
Conservation Service to make those parcels of land productive.
I know that is certainly true on the farm that I was raised on.
So I have a deep appreciation for the work that has been done
in the old SCS and now the NRCS.
But the problem that I have--and I have had this discussion
many times with people up and down your chain of command,
including Niles Glasgow in Florida, and some of the people that
work for him--is that, up until 10 or 12 years ago, the Soil
Conservation Service was viewed by the farming community, the
ag community, as a technical assistance agency in helping them
solve conservation problems. That view of the agency has
totally shifted now in my part of the world from a technical
agency which is there to help farmers to an enforcement agency,
which many times comes and bangs on us about things that we
have to do.
I took note of your statement, Mr. Reed, about staffing
problems, and I agree; I know you have great problems in this
area and they are not all of your own doing; much of them were
brought on by funding problems.
But I wanted, Mr. Lyons to address the issue, if you could,
regarding the agency changing from being a technical assistance
agency to an enforcement the agency.
Mr. Lyons, you made a statement in your written
presentation that says this: ``The NRCS cooperative team
structure''--it is on page 5--``is an established and practical
example of how Federal programs can be managed with local
guidance at the local level.''
I would take issue with that because our people have a
tremendous amount of difficulty getting response, a timely
response, to their applications and their needs. You know, you
might look at the FSA as a practical example of how
localguidance at the local level works, because of the county committee
structure. The NRCS doesn't have a county committee. It is really
managed from the top down.
I didn't come here today to beat on you about what is in
your budget or not in your budget, but rather talk about how we
can work together to make the agency work more efficiently and
be more customer-friendly and serve the people that it is
intended to serve.
If you would comment on those two things: technical
assistance versus enforcement and top-down management versus
bottom-up control, where you actually have more community
input?
Mr. Lyons. Let me first address the technical assistance
versus enforcement issue, Congressman. I appreciate the
opportunity to do that.
I am sure you are aware that the agency's mission and
legislative mandate has changed some over the last almost two
decades, going back to the 1985 farm bill. New programs,
placing new requirements on producers, were put in place, and
then Soil Conservation Service was given the responsibility to
implement those: programs like Conservation Compliance and
Swampbuster and Sodbuster.
That defined a new role for the Soil Conservation Service,
and I dare say it made a lot of people uncomfortable; it made a
lot of producers question whether they had a friend or an
enforcer to deal with. We have tried to work our way through
those issues over time and demonstrate that, through voluntary
approaches to dealing with larger conservation issues, that we
can, in fact, be both a friend to the farmer and help farmers
meet their obligations to protect clean water and wildlife
habitat, and the like.
I think we have accomplished a great deal there, and I am
sure there are still places where there is concern and question
about NRCS' role in whether or not we are being as helpful to
producers as we could be. We are doing everything we can to
provide that in a user-friendly way. I think we have
accomplished a great deal there.
I guess your other questions with regard to top-down versus
local initiative, we do a great deal of our work through local
conservation districts. That is really where conservation hits
the ground and that is where we develop a great deal of the
priorities that we implement, working directly with those
entities.
We are making more and more effort to try to ensure that
those locally-led efforts really drive how we set priorities,
how we deliver programs to the ground. We established,
actually, under the 1990 Farm Bill, updated in the 1996 Farm
Bill, State technical committees that would help agencies at
the State level pull together information, collaborate and
coordinate to better deliver programs to meet priorities on a
State-by-State level, and really try and move program delivery
out to the State and local level. So we are striving to achieve
that, and I think accomplishing a great deal in that regard.
If there is a distinction that I would draw between the
Soil Conservation Service of old and the NRCS of today, maybe
it is not a fair distinction, but I would offer this
observation: We are really placing a great deal of emphasis on
conservation and trying to demonstrate NRCS' capacity to
address clean water, wildlife, and offsite impacts of
agriculture in a way that is not going to threaten the
profitability and viability of farm operations. So, in many
respects, we have stepped up to the plate more than we did
perhaps in previous decades to try to tackle those issues and
demonstrate that we can help landowners meet those obligations
and achieve their conservation goals in that way.
fip release in florida
Mr. Boyd. Well, thank you, Secretary Lyons. I just believe
that most of the problem could be solved with a restructuring.
I notice that one of the things that you did a year or so ago
was the creation of the regional office, which you have already
addressed, which may be a half-step in the right direction. If
you move to a process where the decisions can be made at the
local level within the guidelines that are established at USDA,
then that works. It works for the FSA. And I want to expound
further on that point, and I will turn to you, Mr. Reed, for
this question, and just give you an example of what I am
talking about.
As it relates to the FIP program, we have all talked and
heard a lot today about the expansion of--your
responsibilities, and Mr. Bonilla has talked a little bit about
you going out of the realm of where we thought we ought to be
initially. I tend to agree with him, that we are trying to do
too much with too little, and as a result, we don't do much
with anything.
But the FIP program is a good example. The FIP program used
to be under the FSA, and now it is under, I guess, according to
the 1996 law, you have authority for administering that.
Let me just ask this question: The non-add on FIP money was
released by USDA to the State NRCS in Florida on January the
11th. Five-and-a-half weeks later, on February the 18th, was
the first time an application was approved with money. Now, in
Florida, I don't know if you know, but in north Florida, if you
don't have trees planted in the ground by the 1st of March, you
don't do it; you wait until next winter. So this is a kind of
example--this is an example of the kind of thing I am talking
about.
Can you explain how we could improve our delivery system or
comment on that, Mr. Reed?
Mr. Reed. I can't explain it, and I don't know enough about
the specifics to really respond intelligently, but I will
follow up with Niles Glasgow, our State conservationist there,
and get you a better answer than I can give you today.
[The information follows:]
Release of FIP Funds
The base funding you are referring to was released to Florida on
January 11, 1999. Applications were accepted and prioritized starting
in December 1998. The base allocation of funds was obligated and
applications approved by February 19, 1999. These funds were available
before the end of the planting season. Applications were accepted,
however, not enough seedlings were available for planting in fiscal
year 1999. Those remaining applications will be considered for planting
in fiscal year 2000.
Mr. Boyd. Okay. I want both of you to know, all of you to
know, that this is an important agency to folks in agriculture,
and there are many of us, many of our constituents that, like I
said, wouldn't be farming if it wasn't for a technical
assistance agency that could provide those kind of services to
protect our resources. We recognize how important that is, and
we want to work with you. That is going to be my role here, is
try to make something that works better to serve the farmer and
the consumer.
Thank you.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Latham.
ag drainage wells
Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to our guests
here today.
As you are well aware, in Iowa we have a real problem with
the ag drainage wells and trying to cap those and protect the
aquifer that we all drink out of, I drink water from one on my
farm, and my family uses the water. We have a real concern
about the pollution from the confinement feeding facilities
that are in the area, manure going directly into the aquifer,
obviously.
It has come to my attention, as you are probably well
aware, we have had problems for years trying to get permits and
trying to solve the problem. Locally, everyone has worked very
well together. They have been fighting for Federal agencies
that all claim jurisdiction over farm wetlands. It is like
pushing on a balloon: Push on one side and it comes out some
other place, in another agency, or they change the rules, like
you did.
This last January, it has come to my attention that you
doubled the requirement for mitigation acreage for prior
converted lands in Iowa. Unfortunately, the change was
announced and implemented retroactively. The Iowa Drainage
District Association was attempting to meet a deadline to close
an ag drainage well in Pocohontas County, and in their effort
they had to submit mitigation plans by September, using what
were the rules then. And the change in the rule, obviously,
cost them a great deal of money and time, and forced them to
have to alter their budget and delayed once again the permit
that they have been trying to get for several years now to fix
the potential environmental disaster there.
Well, is it the policy of the NRCS to enforce new
conservation rules, even though organizations or individuals
have submitted the mitigation plans to your agency months
earlier and prior to the alterations and using what were then
acceptable conservation formulas?
Mr. Reed. Mr. Latham, I am not prepared to respond to that,
but I will look into it and get back to you with a specific
answer to your question.
Mr. Latham. I would ask, you don't know what the policy is?
Mr. Reed. I don't know that I fully understand the question
either.
Mr. Latham. Well, NRCS retroactively changed the rules as
far as mitigation, after the Iowa Drainage District had gone
through tremendous expense and time and tried to get a permit
now for about four years to stave off an environmental
disaster. Which is going to pollute the Ogalaga Aquifer if we
don't get something done sometime. We talked about this last
year, and it continues to be a real thorn for a lot of people.
Mr. Lyons. Congressman, let me just attempt to address this
briefly. In that, I understand what happened was the Army Corps
of Engineers decided that a 404 permit was required and had to
be issued in order to take this action. So I don't believe that
NRCS----
Mr. Latham. Yes, you changed the rules in January
retroactively.
Mr. Lyons. Well, I am going to have to look into that,
Congressman, because I don't know that we did, but I will
certainly find out.
Mr. Latham. Okay.
[The information follows:]
Ag Drainage Wells in Iowa
The Trustees of Drainage District 176 plan to close several
drainage wells and connect the drainage project to a new underground
tile system to protect ground water quality. NRCS has been working with
the District since their initial proposal. However, after the Trustees
of the Drainage District filed a request with the Corps of Engineers
(Corps) to seek a determination of jurisdictional wetlands, the Corps
determined that proposed action for this project would require a 404
permit under the Clean Water Act.
Since the Corps is the lead federal agency for determining
mitigation requirements and ratios for this proposed project, NRCS has
not been involved with specific mitigation decisions. However, NRCS in
Iowa has been assisting the Trustees of Drainage District 176 and the
farmers in the watershed with wetland functional assessments so that
their mitigation plan will be acceptable for obtaining the 404 permit
from the Corps.
The Trustees of the Drainage District wanted to proceed so that the
farmers in the watershed could continue to be in compliance with the
wetland conservation provisions of the 1985 Food Security Act in order
to maintain USDA program eligibility. The 1985 Food Security Act
wetland conservation provisions provide that an exemption to program
ineligibility may be granted if an action is authorized by a permit
issued under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
NRCS has worked closely with Drainage District 176 and the local
farmers to ensure that neither easements nor 404 permit conditions will
be placed on agricultural lands by the Corps. To provide for this, NRCS
did not assign any wetland value to areas that farmers may desire to
install additional drainage or intensify cropping after the 404 permit
is issued.
In summary, the Corps established the specific wetland mitigation
requirements and ratios for the drainage well closure project proposed
by Drainage District 176, Pocohontas County, Iowa in order to issue a
404 permit under the Clean Water Act. The 404 permit requirements will
also satisfy wetland conservation provisions of the 1985 Food Security
Act administered by USDA.
cwap and ag drainage wells
Mr. Latham. Are these ag drainage wells--capping them and
trying to solve this problem--any part of the President's Clean
Water Action Plan?
Mr. Lyons. In terms of dealing with the abandoned well
sites?
Mr. Latham. They are not abandoned. They are ag drainage
wells.
Mr. Lyons. They are ag drainage wells.
Mr. Latham. Although we wish they were abandoned.
Mr. Lyons. You know, I don't recall if we have a specific
action item related to that, but certainly it is an issue that
has been raised many times in Iowa. I believe resources are
being allocated to attempt to address some of those concerns.
I would have to give you some specific information on that,
refer to some stuff from the Clean Water Action Plan, to try to
give you a better answer on that. I can't point to a specific
program we have geared toward that, Congressman.
[The information follows:]
Capping of Ag Drainage Well in CWAP
There is no specific action item in the Clearn Water Action
Plan related to the capping of agriculture drainage wells.
afo responsibilities
Mr. Latham. It would seem that that would be something that
could be part of that--I mean, since we are talking about
polluting an entire aquifer here, and that several hundred
thousands of people drink out of it.
Apparently, you have had some questions about the animal
feeding operation strategy. I was just wondering, is the EPA
expecting you to carry all the water on this, to do all the
work on it? Or, are we going to have EPA folks out in the
field, too? Who has responsibility?
Mr. Lyons. Well, as far as the voluntary portions of the
plan or the strategy go, and the development of comprehensive
nutrient management plans, that would be a function that NRCS,
conservation districts, and others would carry out.
We are maintaining a clear distinction between any
regulatory functions that might be implemented, which EPA would
be responsible for, as opposed to those voluntary actions
called for in the strategy, which NRCS would implement.
Mr. Latham. The strategy is pretty arbitrary as to whether
it is voluntary or mandatory, from my understanding in reading
the proposal. I mean, you can arbitrarily make the
determination.
I just wondered, how much time--you have limited staff out
there, and they are overworked as it is. If EPA has real
concerns, you would think that they would carry some of the
responsibility. On the other hand, I don't want EPA folks
running around every farm in Iowa, either, but I don't think
that is a good use of their time. But you don't know what their
involvement is going to be in enforcement?
Mr. Lyons. Well, they would certainly have responsibility
for dealing with certain operators, larger operators, and the
like, who fail to come into compliance. But, by and large, the
strategy focuses on attempting to put in place, through these
comprehensive nutrient management plans, practices that would
minimize the impact of most operators on water quality. I think
our estimates are that only 5 percent of all AFO's might come
under a regulatory requirement through the strategy.
Mr. Latham. Is an NRCS person and an EPA person going to be
driving around together?
Mr. Lyons. Not that I anticipate, no.
Mr. Reed. No.
Mr. Latham. So who is it going to be?
Mr. Reed. The way things are planned right now--and, Mr.
Latham, I know you know the answer to this question is the
NRCS----
Mr. Latham. Well, surprise me. [Laughter.]
Mr. Reed [continuing]. With our conservation partners out
in the countryside, we are expected to carry the load with
respect to providing the technical assistance associated with
implementing the Unified Animal Feeding Strategy.
debt for nature
Mr. Latham. Okay. There is $5 million in the Debt for
Nature program for producers with cashflow problems and land
that needs conservation treatments. Are those cash-poor farmers
going to have to follow the same, shall we say, unclear rules
and somewhat convoluted rules under CRP, or what kind of rules
are we going to follow to make land available? What
requirements? How many hoops are they going to have to jump
through, if they are broke anyway, to qualify?
Mr. Reed. Well, on this one, the rules are yet to be
defined.
Mr. Latham. Oh.
Mr. Reed. So we have an opportunity to avoid some of the
pitfalls you just outlined.
agency priorities
Mr. Latham. Okay. That would be very much appreciated.
I guess I have some concern about priorities. There is $12
million for studies and inventories for a baseline on soil
carbon data and $3 million for carbon sequestration--easy for
me to say. And I just wonder about priorities with the soil
surveys, which are extraordinarily important and need to be
done. I know there is a small increase as far as surveys are
concerned. But I guess whichis a priority? This whole idea, I
think--we are seeing in general, and if you followed any of the
questioning and testimony here, just a tremendous diversion of
resources from traditional agricultural research, from traditional farm
programs, to export assistance, into the global warming/climate area. I
just wondered, the survey part of it is extraordinarily important, and
I would rather see the priority there. Do you have a priority? I mean,
where did this come from? Is this your idea, Mr. Reed? [Laughter.]
Mr. Reed. No, sir, it is not.
Mr. Latham. Is it Mr. Lyons, then, apparently?
Mr. Lyons. It must be my idea. [Laughter.]
Mr. Latham. It must be.
Mr. Lyons. I will respond to that, Congressman----
Mr. Latham. Okay.
Mr. Lyons [continuing]. Since you baited me so well.
Mr. Latham. Okay.
Mr. Lyons. You know----
Mr. Latham. I don't mean to bait you.
Mr. Lyons. No, you know what I mean.
Mr. Latham. Yes.
Mr. Lyons. No, I think, to be honest--and we discussed this
a little bit before--these are small investments out of a total
budget. If I had my way, we would put a lot more money into
conservation and not in other areas in the Federal budget
overall. We don't have that luxury. It is unfortunate that we
have to scrape dollars together to make investments in what I
think are some of the most critical issues--in fact, issues
affecting national security this Nation has in conservation.
These are small investments really intended to learn some
things that, hopefully, can help us address some larger
problems. The minimal investment in global climate change and
soil sequestration, et cetera, is intended to address what many
scholars believe is a global problem, and trying to understand
how agricultural producers can attribute to addressing the
problem, hopefully, in ways that are cost-effective for them.
So I think that is the view that we would offer in terms of why
those are in the budget.
Mr. Latham. And you are well aware that, like in the CRP
program, things like that, which there are--what?--about 5, 6
million acres that should be in the program that are not, the
soil mapping surveys are a very important part of that as far
as preserving these very fragile soils. Obviously, we have been
through various discussions as far as implementation of CRP,
but why we would not put our priorities in things that we know
work, and we have money and we have authority available to
implement things that save real soil, conserve soil, and then
go off and put money in other things that are unproven, is a
little bit--I shouldn't say, ``a little bit''--it is very, very
disturbing.
Mr. Skeen. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. It is time.
Mr. Skeen. Ms. DeLauro has a time-crunch problem.
Mr. Latham. And get one response and I am done, sir.
Mr. Skeen. All right, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Lyons. I will just respond very quickly, Mr. Chairman,
and just say that, in many respects, you can equate those
investments with kinds of research and development investments
that the private sector would make. We are experimenting with
new approaches to deal with what we think are some significant
national and international issues.
We are, however, placing priority on some significant
additional investments in other conservation programs like
EQIP, where we are asking for $300 million. That is a proven
program that has a track record that demonstrates the value of
technical assistance and cost-share assistance. That is where
we would like to see our priorities set.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you. We will come back to you.
Ms. DeLauro.
section eleven cap
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize
to my colleague. I have to give a speech in about 12 minutes.
So, I am going to submit most of my questions for the record,
but I wanted to ask a couple of questions. And it is good to
see you all here.
Mr. Reed, let me congratulate the agency on its work
through the CCC on conservation programs. Let me take a moment
to talk about my district, which is the third district of
Connecticut. We have CCC efforts like WHIP and CRP ongoing in
Wallingford, North Branford, Hamden, and Orange. I understand
that the cap that has been placed on reimbursements from the
CCC for conservation programs that NRCS administers has created
some difficulties within the agency's ability to provide
technical assistance, in order to carry them out in Fiscal Year
1999. Can you explain the problem and suggest how it can be
addressed?
Mr. Reed. Yes. The problem is a complex, but yet at the
same time a simple one. Based on the amount of money that is
available to fund the technical assistance work that is carried
out by the NRCS for the Conservation Reserve Program, we
estimate that we are at least $25 to $28 million short of what
is needed in order to do what has to be done this year.
Ms. DeLauro. This year?
Mr. Reed. And I know that Secretary Lyons here is working
with the Secretary and with our Budget Office developing
options to deal with it. The options, as I understand it, range
from determining whether or not the cap is really an issue or
can it be resolved either through actions of the Secretary or
legislatively, or whether or not a supplemental appropriations
would be needed this year to help us through the situation.
But, as of this moment, based on our best estimates, on or
about the 15th of May, we will no longer--well, we will have
earned all of the reimbursements that there are to be earned
for the CRP program this year.
Ms. DeLauro. What is your prognosis? Are we going to get
some sort of resolve?
Mr. Reed. I don't have a prognosis, but I have a prayer.
Ms. DeLauro. Well, that is often more powerful. [Laughter.]
Mr. Reed. But Mr. Lyons may want to weigh-in now and give
his perspective on it.
Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Lyons? What happens if Mr. Reed's prayer
isn't answered?
Mr. Lyons. We are in trouble. We are in trouble in terms of
our ability to provide that technical assistance, and that is
why the Secretary and I are working to try to reach resolution.
We may address this in the emergency supplemental request or we
may have to seek some other approach. We talked a little bit to
the chairman and others about the need to deal with this. It is
a clear problem we have to address.
Ms. DeLauro. Quickly, if you are cutoff, what is the
downside on that? I mean, what happens? No technical
assistance; what happens? What is the state of play where is it
needed?
Mr. Reed. Well, two things: One is that, if we aren't able
to provide the technical assistance, then the farmers hurt.
Ms. DeLauro. Okay.
Mr. Reed. Secondly, as a part of options to deal with the
funding shortfall problem, I am developing options to advance
to Mr. Lyons to furlough our people. So those are two.
Ms. DeLauro. Okay. Well, you will keep in touch with us on
what is happening?
Mr. Reed. Through my Under Secretary.
workload analysis
Ms. DeLauro. Yes, you will? Okay.
The second question, NRCS is reportedly finalizing the
results of a conservation workload analysis that looks at the
gap between technical assistance resources needed at the field
level to carry out the basic conservation mission, as well as
initiatives such as the Clean Water Action Plan and the recent
animal feeding operations strategy, and the amount of resources
available to actually get conservation practices applied on the
Nation's private lands. It looks like the gap is around $300
million. Is this accurate?
Mr. Reed. Let me tell you what that is.
Ms. DeLauro. Yes.
Mr. Reed. I mentioned earlier that virtually everything
that we do is done in partnership with local conservation
districts and State conservation agencies. To satisfy some of
the accountability issues, we have developed, as a part of our
new accountability system, a workload analysis, and we are
calling it a partnership workload analysis. As we work that
thing from the bottom-up, we determine how much money is
appropriate in terms of the investment for the infrastructure
out in the countryside from the USDA, as well as from the
partners. Based on that workload analysis and the core work
products associated with that, that figure would come out to be
approximately $300 million. That is what we have worked with
the conservation partnership on.
That is focused primarily on making sure that we have
captured in the system at the local level the minimum
infrastructure that is needed, so that we can provide the
appropriate technical assistance to farmers and ranchers and
others.
Ms. DeLauro. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you, Ms. DeLauro.
Mr. Nethercutt.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
land legacy initiative
Gentleman and ladies, welcome. I am sorry that I have been
delayed. I had another hearing, and it is the story of our
lives, I think.
Mr. Lyons, I want to ask you, sir, the administration has
proposed a $1 billion Land Legacy Program to acquire new land.
I am familiar with the Conservation Reserve Program, as you
are, and the Wetlands Reserve Program. I am wondering why these
programs weren't considered for expansion as part of the Land
Legacy proposal. Would you explain to the committee the
thinking behind that?
Mr. Lyons. Certainly, Mr. Nethercutt. The Land Legacy
Program would be funded from OCS lease revenues, Outer
Continental Shelf lease revenues. Approximately $900 million
would come out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
As you know, CCC provides the funding base for CRP and WRP.
So I think that is the distinction that is drawn there.
Mr. Nethercutt. Well, the latter two are good programs, and
it seems to me, what do we have, 36-some-odd million acres in
CRP? In terms of conservation and preservation and management,
it seems to me that those are good models, it seems to me, for
conservation legacies.
I appreciate Ms. DeLauro's comments about CRP. Chief Reed,
it has been very important in our district to have a good CRP
program finally, and thanks for getting that all worked out
relative to the 16th signup.
Leonard Jordan has been out in our district and has
jurisdiction, and has really done a nice job. I want to pass
that onto you publicly as well as privately. He has worked very
hard to run a good shop and deal with farmers and try to have
good communications.
eqip listening sessions
I know that there was a series of listening sessions that
went on relative to the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program, the EQIP program. I am wondering what you all can
report as to what was heard from farmers and ranchers relative
to EQIP? And whatever you learned, I am wondering what you do
with it. How do you implement whatever recommendations you
might have gotten?
Mr. Reed. What I would like to do, Mr. Nethercutt, is to
provide you with a copy of the summary report from that round
of listening sessions.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 75-77 -- The official Committee Record contains additional
material here]
Mr. Reed. I have three or four things I would like to share
with you today.
One is that we were told that we need to try and make the
EQIP program more locally-friendly. Another one was centered
around the need to address the problem with EQIP in that it is
a technical problem, in that funds that are obligated in the
current year, if those contracts fall out in outyears, then
that money goes back to the Treasury and is not available to do
conservation work. So that is another one.
And the third and last thing I will mention was a budget-
type issue, and that is that there is just not enough EQIP
dollars available to satisfy the needs. So, as we get into the
priority-setting, naturally, there is a large, large segment of
our customer base that is left out.
wetland policy
Mr. Nethercutt. Along that line, I am wondering with regard
to the problems relative to wetlands policy and Federal
agencies, what do you perceive to be the problems with regard
to wetland policy? What is NRCS going to do relative to looking
at all those lands and reviewing policy and determining what is
what? Can you help the committee understand a little more what
the intentions are and what the problems are that you face
relative to consideration of wetlands policy?
Mr. Reed. Well, I have talked to some of yourcolleagues
over on the House Agriculture Committee and elsewhere, and they have
told me--and I agree--that it is probably appropriate for the Congress
to have some oversight-type activities, so that we can get some of
these issues on the table, so that they can be scrutinized. I think,
from that process, we will be better able to, in an objective way, deal
with the issues you mention, plus similar-type issues that are tough
for us.
I need to let you know that one of the toughest things that
I am dealing with right now is the conflicting messages that
our own people get out on the countryside, not necessarily from
NRCS, but from all of the folks we have to work with inside and
outside of USDA on what is right, what is doable.
So I would come back and say we need some help from you on
this one.
conservation reserve program cover
Mr. Nethercutt. I understand, and we wish we all had more
money and a perfect world. That is the hard part for us, to try
to deal with limited resources, but lots of need out there,
especially as it relates to agriculture.
In the 16th signup and the 15th signup in CRP, issues have
been raised--and maybe this isn't specifically within your
jurisdiction; maybe you have some thoughts--about the rules and
regulations that have been implemented regarding cover, kinds
of cover, the cost of seed, the cost of cover, relative to what
is existing today or prior to the 16th signup.
Can you update the committee on relative to those
conflicts, those problems that came up in the signups that have
occurred, but, are yet to be fully implemented by the farmer,
that cost-and-bid relationship problem?
Mr. Reed. Mr. Nethercutt, I am just simply not prepared to
deal with that one today.
Mr. Nethercutt. Okay. That is all right. We have dealt with
it out our way, and there is some uncertainty relative to the
availability of the kinds of cover that are needed. If it is
convenient for you, if you could maybe provide something for
the record, that would be very helpful.
[The information follows:]
Conservation Reserve Program
The National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) understands that
certain cover existing on expired and expiring contracts may provide
some benefits to wildlife. However, according to wildlife experts with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and public and private environmental
and wildlife agencies, covers of monoculture grasses do not provide the
level of wildlife and wildlife habitat benefits that can be achieved
from a mixture of grasses (including forbs and legumes) native to the
area. Consequently, acreage planted to one type of grass is not as
likely to be accepted as acreage that will be devoted to a cover with a
mixture of grass providing greater diversity and wildlife habitat.
Seeding mixtures developed by NRCS for CRP are reviewed and
approved by State Technical Committees. In addition, USDA has provided
producer flexibility in the establishment of enhanced cover. Producers
may take up to two years to establish their enhanced cover where the
recommended grass seed is unavailable or where seed costs will create
an adverse economic hardship on the producer. Native forbs and legumes
may be substituted with introduced species that will achieve the same
wildlife or conservation purpose. Also, approved methods of
establishing enhanced covers such as interseeding, planting in strips,
or planting a little over half of a CRP field to the prescribed cover
will not require the complete destruction of the present cover in most
cases while controlling soil erosion.
Mr. Nethercutt. I just want you all to know that there is
that problem for the farmer versus the bid that was proffered,
and then the consequent cost of meeting the needs, the rules
and regulations for providing cover and making sure the CRP
program is right.
I think after-discovery determinations have been tough on
farmers, and they are trying to figure out what the
requirements and rule and regs are. It is not easy. So I would
thank you for any response you could provide.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to ask a few questions. I will submit others for
the record.
learning more about nrcs
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Farr pursued an interesting line of
questioning for me, and that relates to how well the
information you produce is able to be used by State and local
officials. I know, from my own experience many years ago, the
opinion of local zoning and subdivision officials was that
agricultural land is a residual. It is only there unless you
can use the land for something else. Therefore, it was not
zoned; it was not regarded highly as a national resource or an
international resource.
Even though the Soil Conservation Service in those days
went around doing some mapping in the countryside, the
influence of that over local land decisions and State land
decisions I would say was very minimal. I have struggled with
this for years in my own mind, as to what is proper to do
regarding that.
We did change some subdivision regulations back in our home
State to give agriculture its own primacy, its own place within
those laws, as a very important natural resource, in the same
way as we might specially map the Great Lakes as freshwater
resources that we had a special responsibility for. We never
really did that in Ohio, I am only speaking of now, and I doubt
other States did, either, from what Mr. Farr said today.
I guess one of the questions I have of you, Mr. Lyons and
Mr. Reed, if I look at the very detailed budgetsubmission that
was submitted here today, on pages 17-21, you talk about a request for
geospatial data, trying to present information in a different way. I
would ask you the question, based on the information you have available
to you now before this request, if I were to say to you, do you have
the ability within USDA to come up to us, before this committee, let's
say, and have a series of transparencies that would be superimposed
over one another that would tell us the story of what your division of
USDA has done over the years, that would show the prime lands, the most
productive lands, the soils that are truly in the national interest,
where those would be located? And you would overlay various other
important features that would be important for this committee to know
about.
For example, wildlife habitat, we have been talking about
some of those programs. Mr. Nethercutt was talking about the
enrollments in the Conservation Reserve Program. There are many
other--some States have instituted farmland protection
programs. Mr. Boyd talked about the Forestry Incentive Program.
Is there a way of you, in a more visual and meaningful way
to this committee, helping us to understand the full range of
programs that you administer, and how those impact on our
natural resource base? I think it is really hard, especially
for the new members, and certainly for returning members like
myself, to really grasp the enormity of what your Department is
being asked to do.
I think part of that difficulty stems from the fact that we
are presented with a lot of words and budget numbers, but some
of the mapping that could be essential to our understanding is
not submitted along with the budget. Is that impossible for you
to do today?
Mr. Lyons. Today ``today,'' yes. But we could clearly
provide you with those overlays that show where we are applying
CRP, those farms where EQIP is being used as a conservation
tool, critical wildlife habitat, areas of water quality
concern, et cetera. We have that capacity, and we certainly
could spell that out.
[The information follows:]
NRCS is developing a briefing presentation under advisement of the
Ranking Member. The information is in electronic/multi-media form, not
for print. It will be presented to the Subcommittee at the earliest
agreeable date.
Mr. Lyons. You raise a very interesting point, though, Ms.
Kaptur, and this is, I think, kind of the nexus for us, the
next challenge in terms of how we apply conservation on the
landscape. I just throw this out for you to think about.
We constantly struggle as an agency--I think all agencies
do this--in implementing programs. We have CRP signup one day,
and then we will have WRP signup the next day, et cetera, et
cetera. I think our real challenge is to apply conservation
across the landscape and to use those tools to the maximum
efficiency to achieve the conservation goals that we have.
We are starting to experiment with that now--for example,
continuous signup of CRP for buffer strips, to protect those
critically-important riparian areas which are important, high
value for wildlife habitat, important or water quality, et
cetera; trying to use the EQIP program and target it to high-
priority landscapes where there is sensitive soils,
environmentally-sensitive resources that we need to address. We
are using the State technical committees to do that.
We have the capacity to begin to lay that picture out for
you, and if it would be helpful, we would be glad to come up
and brief you on how we would provide conservation services on
the landscape, whether it is the landscape in Ohio or in New
Mexico, and what role we play in trying to achieve goals, not
only related to conservation, as maybe the public thinks about,
but to preserving clean water, to improving forage production,
to maintaining or promoting timber supply, et cetera, all of
those things that fall under our purview.
In fact, I would argue that is the great conservation
challenge of the next century. Most of the investment we make--
and I know you know this because you have to deal with
allocations between subcommittees--still are in public lands.
We continue to invest a tremendous amount of money and time and
energy and anguish over public land debates, which, of course,
the Chairman gets to do over in his Interior Subcommittee. Yet,
two-thirds of the American landscape is privately-owned. Most
of the water that falls, most of the rainfall that runs through
those watersheds runs through private land. Yet, we really
invest a very, very small amount of money in the conservation
and stewardship of that important element of landscape.
I think if we laid that out for you, you could see how
critical that investment is and, of course, how critical your
decisions are to assuring good conservation across that
landscape.
Ms. Kaptur. I would just ask the chairman's indulgence on
this, and some of the staff. I personally, and I think several
of our members on our side here, would be veryinterested in
learning more about each others' regions of the country. Rather than
just traveling to people's districts, I think it could be very helpful
if there were a way of you going back and thinking about how to help us
educate ourselves about the different experiences we have in our
regions of the country.
I can tell you, in traveling to our esteemed Chairman's
region of the country, when we flew over the Colorado River and
I looked at some of the irrigated patches, that was such a
weird experience to me, coming from our part of the country. I
thought, you know, I shouldn't have had to travel--but then
there are these issues with Mr. Farr with snowfall over in
Colorado, and does the water drain over into his part of the
country?
You know, I really think that that kind of generalized
briefing could be extremely interesting for us and help for us
to understand, also, the interrelationship of programs. Now
this may happen over on the authorizing committee; I don't
know. But I would just say to the chairman, maybe not during
this budget cycle, but maybe after we get through this bill, to
have that kind of informational session for our members I think
would be extremely interesting. If you are able to do it--I
didn't know whether you were, and whether your program officers
even talked to one another over there at USDA. With the number
of programs we get thrown at us, sometimes we wonder.
But I would make that request, and just ask if maybe the
committee might not be willing to consider it at some point
this year? Members like to learn. I ask myself, as I look at
page 17-25, which deals with your conservation operations, and
I look at Mississippi--and I don't mean just to pick on
Mississippi, but, my goodness, why does Mississippi have 298
staff-years? Why doesn't Mississippi--what does it have
compared to California----
Mr. Skeen. Probably a chairman. [Laughter.]
Ms. Kaptur [continuing]. 173 years? I am thinking, well,
maybe it's the river drains down there, you know; we have got
watershed problems.
But I do ask myself. So you look at the way in which we
spend our dollars. My goodness, I have served in the Congress--
this is the beginning of my 17th year, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes
I don't necessarily understand the relationship of these
numbers. I look at the watershed and flood prevention
operations on page 17-38, and I look at Ohio. I mean, gee, why
does Ohio--I am glad we get all that, but why? And here my
district is flooded. So what is going on there? Why don't we
qualify for a couple of the watershed operation program up in
our corner of the State?
I think if we could have that kind of briefing down the
road, it could be very, very helpful. So I just wanted to put
that on the record. So that is not so much in the way of a
question, but a request.
Mr. Lyons. We welcome that request, Ms. Kaptur, and we
would love to do it before you finish this bill, as opposed to
after you finish the bill.
Ms. Kaptur. I will leave that to the discretion of the
Chairman. We have a lot of new members on our side of the
aisle, and I just think it would be awfully interesting.
Mr. Skeen. Well, we will take--Mr. Farr? I agree with you.
I agree; I think with the technology that you have today, that
you are capable of doing this thing, and we can discuss that.
Mr. Farr, if he would like to ask another question.
Mr. Farr. Well, I am sorry I missed part of it. I really
enjoy this discussion. Perhaps I have been a little
philosophical in wanting to--but I think you ought to take the
look at how you can work yourselves out of a job. If, indeed,
you are going to teach land use management practices, then you
ought to get them incorporated. That idea, the concept of a
building code I think is absolutely essential.
You know what the best management practices are. When I
talk to farmers who say, ``You know, the problem with dealing
with government is that there are too many of them out
there''--it is not that there is too much government; there are
too many governments, too many governmental organizations. We
can't just go to one and say, okay, we are going to do all of
these things you suggest, and that is all we have to deal with,
because along comes the State and says, well, we knew nothing
about that; we are not working in conjunction with that, and we
have our own other issues. Then along comes the county--in
California, counties are very powerful, and they are
sophisticated. They have money, and they will hire the
professionals who may even work for you. They come along with
their thing. So these poor farmers are saying, ``Which
government do we have to work with, because we get a different
message from each one of them?''
What we have tried to do in our area--and I applaud you for
it; it has been some of your staff, and they ought to get the
highest award in America for it. Because I went to my farmers
on this watershed issue, wetlands issue. They had a roomful of
people like this, and the farmers, essentially, said--and there
was probably as many people working for government as there is
in this room, working for all these different agencies--and the
farmers said, ``Okay, which one of the people in this room do I
deal with?'' I asked the question, ``Which one is it?'' And
about five of them raised their hands, and they were all from
different levels government.
They said, ``Well, we can't deal with that. We can't make
any commitment.''
So we said, ``Okay, Governmental Folk, you get on the same
page.'' I thought they would take a month. It took them two-
and-a-half years. We got a single-stop, thanks to an employee
of yours, one-stop shopping.
The Coastal Commission buys it--all of the regulatory and
planning, county planning departments, all of them. And do you
know what they do? They go out with the farmer right now and
they work with each farmer and they say, ``This is what we
think you ought to do,'' and the farmer says, ``Fine. I'll do
it with my own money, my own time. That is all I wanted to
know. Thank you very much. I appreciate all your professional
help. Come back in, monitor me, and tell me what I am doing
right.'' And it is working.
I don't know why we can't start doing that. We spend all of
this money and all of this time, and, yet, we haven't gotten it
infused. I mean, if this were your children, they would still
be in the first grade, and you would wonder, at 16, they would
look a little awkward there.
So I want to see if we can start moving all of these
programs. I have been working on a watershed survey for five-
and-a-half years here. I have been talking to the wrong people.
I didn't know you did that. I thought the Corps of Engineers
did it.
So there are things here that you really do, and I would
like to try to get some more of one-stop, one-page. I thinkif
we do that, government is better served. The criticisms that you get
from people who think that the best way to solve the problem is just
sort of put a meat axe to it, just cut government--if you cut it, it
ought to get better, because there is too much of it. I don't think
that is the way to do it. I think you finetune it and make it work
better.
You are in a position where so much of the land in this
country is dependent upon whether we in the next couple of
years learn how to make that land maximize its production
ability and minimize the adverse impacts of that production,
through minimizing pesticide use, runoff, erosion, and so on. I
can't think of an agency in America that will have more impact
on the future of our country, and how it will look and how it
will produce, than the people sitting at this hearing and your
successors.
So I am very excited about working with you. I would urge
that you think about ways to get the best management practices
together with local and State government, get to the one-step,
and then get the local governments to buy it in. The people
will push them to do it, because they will be so glad that they
only have to work with one government.
And I will support you. I just encourage you to think that
way, think outside the Federal box.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you.
Folks, I think it is about time to wrap it up, but I want
to tell you this: how much we appreciate you, what you do. As
one who practiced in this field at one time and understands
why, some of the reasons why, you do the way you do today--
because for a long time it was a matter of bringing technology
into the fields, but the persons who either graduated from the
universities, or whatever, in those particular fields today
that technology has gone way beyond that. We relied on it a
great deal, and it is not as person-oriented as it is a
technological orientation. You folks, I think, are responding
to that.
I think Ms. Kaptur has an excellent idea. I think, with the
technology we do have today, that you can make comparisons. I
think that we ought to educate this group, because those of us
who come from the soil production area, making a living with
it, into this place that we call the country's legislative
body, we spend a lot of our time explaining what we do. And
they ask, ``Have you ever been a farmer or a ranch operator?''
Very few of those folks come to Washington. The East doesn't
know what the West is doing, and the West doesn't know what the
East is doing. I think that we have an opportunity to educate
at least this group of folks over here. Sometimes I think we
are uneducatable, but we will try. I think it is a good
request, Marcy. I think it makes a lot of good sense.
You folks who would know how to put it together, we would
like to get some response from you.
We want to thank you for what you do, how well you do it,
and those people who back you up in the back there. We have
spent two-and-a-half or three hours on this stuff today. There
is an avid interest in what you are doing, and we know we are
supposed to put the dollars to it, but that is not the end of
the game. What kind of results do you get?
Mr. Lyons. That is right.
Mr. Skeen. Well, thank you for all that you do.
If we have any other questions, we will submit them.
Mr. Skeen. We are adjourned.
[The following questions were submitted to be answered for
the Record:]
[Pages 85-358 -- The official Committee Record contains additional
material here]
Wednesday, March 3, 1999.
MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS
WITNESSES
MICHAEL V. DUNN, UNDER SECRETARY, MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS
CRAIG A. REED, 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
Mr. Skeen. I want to say good afternoon, and today we have
with us the Marketing and Regulatory Programs of the Department
of Agriculture, and Under Secretary Dunn--and that does sound
better than Assistant Secretary, does it not?
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much for your assistance, Mr.
Chairman, on that.
Mr. Skeen. You have done yourself proud.
We are leaving it up to you to present a brief opening
statement, and I would ask that Mr. Reed, the APHIS
administrator, Dr. Figueroa, the administrator of AMS, and
GIPSA administrator, Mr. Baker, will follow your lead.
Your prepared statements will be printed in full for the
record. Now it is all yours, if you will introduce your group,
and we will launch this little boat.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you, sir.
Introduction of Witnesses
Mr. Dunn. Today, I have with me Mr. Baker, the
administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards, Dr.
Figueroa, who is the administrator of Ag Marketing Service, and
Dr. Reed, who is the administrator of Animal Plant Health
Inspection Services, and Mr. Steve Dewhurst, who is director of
the OBP&A for the United States Department of Agriculture.
Opening Statement
Mr. Chairman, I will give a brief oral statement, with my
written testimony being submitted as part of the record.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you, sir.
I think it comes as no surprise to folks that the
Department has been under so much stress this year because our
producers have been under stress. The farmers and ranchers, the
folks that we all work for, your constituencies have been under
stress. This has been a very, very tough year for us as we look
at the outlook for what may happen in the future, and it is
especially important for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
With the advent of the 1996 Farm Bill, we see more and more
of the responsibilities for marketing to come under the
Marketing and Regulatory Programs' umbrella. Certainly, Mr.
Chairman, these agencies need to be able to respond to the
conditions of the future.
We had devastating news for pork producers this year. In
December, we reached an all-time low, about 8 cents per pound
for pork producers. This translates into real agony for the men
and women that are involved in agriculture out in the
countryside, your constituents, our constituents.
In Marketing and Regulatory Programs, we looked to see what
could we do to assist these pork producers. Under Ag Marketing
Services, the one thing we could do is purchase additional pork
products to get into the school lunch program, to get into
nutrition programs. What we did, Mr. Chairman, is we reached
our legislative cap that we could have for pork purchases.
Under the law, we can go to 25 percent of Section 32 for any
single commodity. We did that for the pork producers.
More importantly, when we did that, we told the packers
what we wanted them to do was to have a part of that portion to
come from overtime work, kills that were going on over the
weekend and on second shifts. Because what we were told by pork
producers, that the kill capacities just simply was not out
there to take care of the demand that they had for pork
slaughter.
In GIPSA, we went in to look at what transpires out there
in the marketplace, and we had a study in 1996. And what we
found in that study was that primarily smaller pork producers,
those that market less, did not realize higher prices that some
of the other contract larger producers might get. And we took
that information to Ag Marketing Service and asked them to take
a look at that and to report what is actually happening out
there in the marketplace so producers have a better
understanding of what the price for pork might be. In the
beginning of this year, they did change how they reported pork
prices out there.
But, Mr. Chairman, probably the most help that we could for
family farmers at this time was really through Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Services. What we did there was go to an
emergency situation using $80 million from CCC monies and began
an indemnification program to eradicate pseudorabies. This was
a win-win situation for us.
What we were able to do was take approximately 1.17 to 1.9
million head of pork out of production, sending it to slaughter
to rendering plants, indemnify the producers for that, and thus
free up this kill capacity of the slaughter plants. That is the
way that we see Marketing and Regulatory Programs needing to
operate in the future to respond to these types of situations
that we have in the marketplace.
fy 2000 budget request
Well, let me get down to business, Mr. Chairman, on what we
are asking for in our funding request. We are proposing $825
million of program activities. Under current law, taxpayers
would fund $458 million, and beneficiaries of service will pay
$367 million. Marketing and Regulatory Programs administer over
50 percent of the Department user fee programs at the present
time.
Under Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards, Mr.
Chairman, at these times when producers are getting low prices,
they come to us and they say is there something going on out
there? Is the marketplace being constricted because of
monopolies out there? What is going on? And they are asking us
to take a hard look at what is going on out there and give them
information about what is taking place.
So what we are proposing to do is to enhance our monitoring
and analysis of packer competition in the industry structure.
Second, we are looking at broadening the size and scope of
the poultry compliance investigation. The Baltimore paper has
just finished up a series of reports about what can be done to
assist poultry operators out there.
Mr. Chairman, we desperately need those additional funds
that we requested to give us the research and personnel needs
and probably some more teeth in Packers and Stockyards
legislation to be able to do something to assist these
producers out there.
We need to establish an electronic filing procedure, a
method in which we can get rapidly, almost on a real-time
basis, the information of what is going on out there in the
packing industry so that we can analyze that to see if there is
any funny business going on. That electronic filing system
would be the single best factor that we could have to give us a
better understanding of what is happening in the packing
industry.
And we need to identify the emerging grain-testing
techniques and to develop analytical techniques for identifying
generic differences in grain varieties. We are going to be
seeing greater and greater requests for identity preserved on
grains, and we need to develop an automated procedure for
testing for mycotoxins, all of that under Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards.
Under Ag Marketing Service, we are currently finishing up
with our milk marketing order reforms. As this committee has
asked us to do, we will publish that by the 4th of April, but
it will not be implemented until the end of October. What we
will try to do, Mr. Chairman, is ensure that we publish those
milk marketing order reforms before you go on spring break that
will give us an opportunity to come up and brief you and your
staff, so that when you go back out to the countryside, you
will not be caught off-guard and having us do it on the 4th of
April, for instance.
Another major area that Ag Marketing Service is working on
is putting together the organic standards. We should have those
out this year. It has been a major undertaking by the
Department to be able to put that together.
The AMS is putting a high priority on the demands of
meeting the pesticide residue data that is needed for EPA to
implement the Food Quality Protection Act. For 2000, a rapid
response capability will be established that will enable EPA to
complete risk assessments, evaluation of pesticides affecting
multiple commodities in a more timely fashion. AMS will modify
existing methodologies to test meat, poultry, eggs and drinking
water for pesticide residue.
Export markets are of tremendous concern to our producers
out there, and they are asking us to give them more
information. If they are to be in a global marketplace, they
need to know what is happening in that global marketplace. So
for greater demand for that market news, AMS is proposing to
incorporate reports from major export markets into the existing
market news and information. We will also be establishing a
market news and information for organic crops, which is really,
we see, as a major thrust of assisting small, family-size farm
operations that primarily are in the organic industry at this
time.
We will identify alternative marketing strategies for small
and medium farmers as well and disseminate that information in
a series of meetings across the Nation.
And, finally, Mr. Chairman, for Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Services, APHIS has a 2000 budget request of $10
million above the level appropriated for 1999, but we have made
significant changes in what our priorities are for APHIS.
The increased budget priorities involve $14.2 million for
the detection and exclusion of pest and disease, $6.3 million
for more timely and accurate surveillance information on plant
and animals, including funds for emergency preparedness against
acts of bio-terrorism, $3.8 million for emerging plant pest and
invasive species, and $2.6 million for data gathering and risk
analysis.
Mr. Chairman, it is important, if we are going to be in a
global marketplace, if family farmers are reliant upon that
export market, and some of the reasons why we are in a
situation today of low prices is because of our precipitive
drop in our export marketplace. APHIS needs to take the lead to
reduce those sanitary-phytosanitary barriers that are out there
to open up those marketplaces for us.
Simultaneously, the greatest threat that we have is for
those foreign pest and disease to come into this United States.
Classic swine fever, which we know is right off our shores on
the Hispaniola Island could come in and continue to devastate
the pork markets that we have here in the United States today.
So we have to have that type of vigilance, as well as opening
up those marketplaces.
We recently have found a new invasive species that is
coming in, something called the long-horned beetle, Asian long-
horned beetle. And in New York and Chicago, this beetle is
wreaking havoc with our hardwood trees. We are losing maple
trees. We are going into the City of Chicago and the City of
New York, and we are cutting down trees because it is the only
way we know how to get rid of these invasive insects at this
time.
We must, Mr. Chairman, ensure that we protect our shores
from these. I am very proud of what APHIS did. In a short span
of 32 days, they promulgated regulations to exclude solid wood
packing material from China, which was the origin of this
beetle. And we have over 70-percent compliance at this time
from China sending goods into the United States.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I will conclude and open it for
questions or to hear from the administrators.
[The prepared statements and biographies of Michael Dunn,
Enrique E. Figuerora, Craig A. Reed, and James R. Baker
follow:]
[Pages 364-453 -- The official Committee Record contains additional
material here]
Mr. Skeen. Thank you, Mr. Dunn. Let us hope that they do
not make the beetle an endangered species. [Laughter.]
We have got enough of those.
Mr. Dunn. We would like to eliminate it in the United
States.
WILDLIFE SERVICES
Mr. Skeen. Hopefully. Your testimony and that of Dr. Reed
make a good case for the importance of Wildlife Services'
programs, and I agree.
Last year, we defeated a floor amendment to cut the budget,
and now you are proposing to cut both operations and methods
development. Why is this?
Dr. Reed. Mr. Chairman, the proposed cut in Wildlife
Services is serious and relates to priorities. Both within the
Agency and at the Department, there are more demands for
services than available resources. We have a list of services
that we need to be providing, and we are running out of money
in Wisconsin and Minnesota for wolf control.
The people in Wildlife Services are doing a wonderful job
keeping up with service demands in the face of additional
costs.
Mr. Skeen. Well, how does it reflect back on the operation
itself?
Dr. Reed. I can give you some basic figures.
Mr. Skeen. We can have those inserted in the record, if you
would like.
Mr. Reed. Yes, we will do that.
[The information follows:]
Our budget requests a $1.8 million reduction for operations
and asks that cooperators assume a larger share of program
costs.
Mr. Skeen. Last year at your request we added some
additional money to APHIS for aviation safety. What is the
status of that program, and what are your plans for the next
fiscal year?
Dr. Reed. Last year, as you know, Mr. Chairman, we had some
serious problems with air safety. We had some----
Mr. Skeen. Birds around airfields.
Mr. Reed. We had some bird strikes around airports. There
is always room for doing additional work there. We are working
with major airports in this area to make sure that the flights
out have a wildlife biologist on site at both National and
Dulles Airports.
So we are using that money to make sure that we control
geese and other birds that will be giving a problem to the jet
traffic in and out of the area.
[Subsequent to the hearing the following information was
provided:]
With regard to the accidents I mentioned and the $1.2
million provided in 1999, APHIS has embarked on a multi-year
process of upgrading aircraft, flight crew training, air
worthiness safety and certification to comply with the
recommendations of the aerial safety review.
Mr. Skeen. That is going to be an ingenious effort. For
doing as much flying as we do around here, we surely do not
need them going through engines.
Mr. Dunn. Mr. Chairman, last year I called a moratorium on
Wildlife Services from using aircraft because of exceedingly
high accident rates and concern over the safety of our Wildlife
Services employees in the aircraft.
We did a complete review of that. We were able to get
people back up in the air in certain types of aircraft. I am
happy to say we now have one full-time safety officer in
Wildlife Services and will have a second one soon. We are
making great strides in improving the safety of our employees
to be able to perform their mission.
Mr. Skeen. A nonaviation exercise?
Mr. Dunn. Yes.
KARNAL BUNT
Mr. Skeen. I understand where you are going.
The Arizona Department of Agriculture has said that the
filters that were used to check for Karnal bunt spores were
mislabeled by USDA, which resulted in the contamination problem
that we now have. Is this the case and, if so, what is being
done about it?
Dr. Reed. Again, Mr. Chairman, let me respond to that. We
know that there were some problems at a contract lab that APHIS
does not operate, but oversees, in Arizona. There are two
screens that APHIS provides to the lab to detect Karnal bunt
spores. We found out that the screens were in the wrong place
allowing spores to go undetected.
A review team is beingassembled right now to review quality
control at that lab to make sure it never happens again.
Mr. Skeen. Well, sir, that is great news to the people that
have been impacted by this Karnal bunt situation, which
happened in New Mexico and Arizona. All of the efforts that one
goes through in cleansing the equipment that is used to handle
it have been very tough.
Organic Certification
Dr. Figueroa, I realize that we may sound like a scratched
record album here, but the 1990 Farm Bill authorized the
development of nationwide standards for organic certification.
I went back to March 1996 and found statements from AMS
testimony regarding the proposed and final rule on organic
standards and its implementation.
I am not going to read them to you, but I am sure that they
would sound familiar to you. Nine years and $3.2 million later
there is still no final rule. And according to the budgets, you
are planning to spend $923 thousand this fiscal year and
another $1.7 million in fiscal year 2000 on this program,
bringing the total to $5.8 million.
What are the reasons for the latest delay in getting the
final rules published and submitted?
Mr. Figueroa. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the committee.
Mr. Skeen. Excuse me for not being more amenable, but----
Mr. Figueroa. You are not the first, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. And probably will not be the last either.
[Laughter.]
Thank you, Dr. Figueroa. Go ahead.
Mr. Figueroa. We received, as you may know, a record number
of comments on our proposed rule that we proposed in December
of 1997--275,000. It is the most comments for any rule
published in the USDA. Just the sheer volume of comments to go
through, certainly required a good amount of time. In addition,
there were three controversial issues within the proposed rule:
irradiation, bioengineered products and the use of sewage
sludge that the Secretary announced in May that we no longer
include in the reproposed rule.
Secondly, the industry came to AMS to request the issuance
of three current thinking papers, which we issued in the latter
part of last year. In those discussions, I mentioned and put
forth to the industry that if we did those, it would prolong
the issuance of the final rule. They felt it was better, in the
long run, to have the issuance of these three current thinking
papers, even if it prolonged the final rule coming out.
Mr. Skeen. Finalizing the rule?
Mr. Figueroa. We were going to finalize the rule in 1999
and our goal is to try to have a final rule in 1999, yes, sir.
Mr. Skeen. 1999. That is the reason for the delay?
Mr. Figueroa. It was the volume of comments, sir, and as
well as that, the issuance of three current thinking papers
that required a comment period, and we had to focus on those
three current thinking papers.
Mr. Skeen. Well, you covered the whole gambit of problems
dealing with it, and that is what is holding up the rule.
Mr. Figueroa. The three current thinking papers were on
three issues that were very important to the industry, that
they felt they needed some additional comments on, yes, sir.
Mr. Skeen. Very good.
The organic industry is valued today at about $3.5 billion
and growing at the rate of 22 percent per year. Why do we need
a National Organic Standards Rule at all?
Mr. Figueroa. The industry, as you know, came to Congress
in 1990 because they felt that national standards would
accomplish two things, and we concur with that. One is that
national standards will assure all consumers in this country
that when they buy a product that is labeled organically grown,
handled and processed or produced, that they know that a
minimum set of standards have been adhered to in the production
and processing of that product.
In addition, the industry felt, and we concur, that having
this minimum national set of standards would indeed facilitate
the growth of the industry. Clearly, the industry has grown in
its current system of either State-based or private
certification systems, but we feel, and I think the industry
feels as well, that national sets of standards will expand the
domestic industry.
Finally, the entrance of organically produced products in
the international markets we feel will also be facilitated by
having a national set of organic standards, particularly in the
European Union.
Mr. Skeen. How is the term ``organic'' defined? And will
the final rule on organic standards alter that definition in
any way?
Mr. Figueroa. There are currently 42 different
certification entities in the country. Some are State-based
programs, others are private- or quasi-private-based programs.
Mr. Skeen. How are you going to split it?
Mr. Figueroa. Each of those have fairly similar definitions
of what constitutes organic production. We will likely be very
consistent with the prevailing industry definition of organic
production with our national standards, yes, sir.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you. Thank you for your responses.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the conclusion of hearings on
the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Department of
Agriculture, the Agricultural Marketing Service published a
final decision on consolidating the 31 Federal milk marketing
orders into 11 orders as mandated by the 1996 Farm Bill. The
entire three-part final decision documents are on file with the
Subcommittee. The following is a summary of the final decision
as proposed by the Secretary of Agriculture:]
[Pages 458-469 -- The official Committee Record contains additional
material here]
Ms. Kaptur.
asian longhorned beetle
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, gentlemen. I
am so happy to have you here. I just love this group. I am glad
they are here today. Enjoyed your testimony, Mr. Dunn.
[Laughter.]
I know the good work that they try to do and do.
Dr. Reed, I wanted to start with you, if I might. On the
issue of the Asian long-horned beetle, did you actually
determine the origin of that?
Dr. Reed. Yes.
Ms. Kaptur. How did you do that?
Dr. Reed. We inspected solid wood packing materials,
crating materials for airfreight, and other freight arriving
from China, and actually found larva and insects in the wood
packing material. We then inspected a lot of wood packing
material from several countries because this kind of damage
occurs in wood crates and pallets where the lower grades of
wood are used. It was in the wood packing material where we
found the larva.
Ms. Kaptur. Now, do you receive that material through U.S.
Customs or do you have your own inspectors at certain ports of
entry? How is it that you got the actual material?
Dr. Reed. Customs looks at it first and then we get it.
Ms. Kaptur. For how long had that been coming into the
United States, do you estimate, before you actually got the
sample?
Dr. Reed. We detected the pest in New York a couple of
years ago. Earlier last year, we found tree damage very close
to O'Hare Airport in Chicago and through additional surveys,
found the larva in the trees. The larva actually killed the
trees after a couple of years. So it is not like it is a
situation where you can live with this particular pest.
Ms. Kaptur. I read in your testimony that you say that in
New York, and you do not cover Illinois I do not think here, it
has cost $5 million so far to remove the trees; is that true?
Dr. Reed. The State of New York and the Federal government
have spent $5 million in removing 2,500 trees.
Ms. Kaptur. Have we really gotten a hold of this, do you
think? Have we removed all of the trees? We do not know, those
beetles could be out there.
Dr. Reed. We conduct surveys to determine if there is
damage or additional areas of infestation, but our main
emphasis is preventing entry through wood packing material. We
instituted an emergency rule last year and began implementing
it the beginning of this year. We told China what was going on
and what they had to do. So far we have had very good
compliance.
Ms. Kaptur. How much money has this already cost the State
of New York, the Federal Government, the State of Illinois, the
City of Chicago, or whoever is having to remediate?
Dr. Reed. Let me get those figures for you, Congresswoman.
Ms. Kaptur. What responsibility do the Chinese have for
paying that bill? What portion of it have they paid and what
mechanism do we have to get recovery--costs recovery?
Dr. Reed. I do not know if we have a mechanism for
recovering from the Chinese.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, you have hit one of my favorite areas of
inquiry. [Laughter.]
I would very much appreciate it if you would try to get me
figures on what these States and the Feds have spent thus far
in remediation, and include in that any of your own research
costs and other costs where you have had to do analysis and so
forth to really figure out--include your administrative costs
in that, and your projection for the next year; what you have
spent to date and what your projection is over the next year.
[Subsequent to the hearing, the following additional
information was provided.]
We estimate that about $9 million has been spent in this
cooperative effort through this year. We estimate spending the
requested $2.1 million for next year.
Mr. Dunn. Ms. Kaptur, there are a couple of things. We try
to do inspection of about 2 percent of everything that comes
into the United States. APHIS looks at items that may have a
pest or disease that would affect our agricultural interests.
We were not always looking at solid wood packing material until
after we had found a pest in it. Now we understand that wood
packing material is a source of the pest. This is the reason
why that infestation may have been here for four or five years
before we discovered it.
In Chicago, for instance, somebody found one of the
insects, compared it to information on our Web site, and
determined that they had the pest. So as you indicate, we need
to do a much better job of getting the information out, so that
we have more eyes and ears out there across the Nation to see
if this pest is in other parts of the Nation.
Normally, when we get an infestation, or some country gets
an infestation, it is from a product that was brought in; it is
the buyer beware. So, there really is not any legal recourse to
say, ``All right, You have caused this disease, You have to pay
for it.'' It is the receiving country's responsibility that
incurs the pest to be on the alert. This is why having our
first line of defenses are so important in APHIS, to keep these
pests and diseases out and to have surveillance teams examining
all the possibilities.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, Under Secretary, I do not mean to
disagree with you, but one of the problems with our trade
agreements is we do not accommodate environmental issues. If I
look at what happened with Gypsy moths, and we have had a
little experience with that in our part of the country, having
migrated from the East Coast, and we know just the amount of
money this is going to--I really do believe that those
responsible, including the shipping company and whomever, the
freight forwarders, they are all responsible. It is not just
the poor little taxpayer sitting in Chicago or New York that is
responsible to pay this.
So I am not saying you have not done a good job. I am just
trying to, I guess, as the attorneys do, assess blame here and
restitution, and this is an area that interests me a great
deal, and I doubt that this is going to go away. I have a hunch
these little beetles are going to propagate, and we are going
to have to rip down more trees.
Dr. Reed, what could they devastate? Let us say it is like
the Gypsy moths, and we just cannot get control of it because
there is no natural predator, what is it that they destroy?
Dr. Reed. The preferred host is soft hardwood trees, like
maples and elms. We are very fearful of the beetle migrating to
our maple forests. Of course, everybody loves their big maple
trees in their back yard so it is devastating for residential
growers as well.
screwworm facility--mexico
Ms. Kaptur. I thank you very much for your frank replies to
that.
Dr. Figueroa, I wanted to welcome you and ask you last year
we discussed the APHIS facility in Chiappas, Mexico, that is
scheduled to be closed in 2004. And we had talked about, yes,
we have done a great job at eliminating screwworm on the
continent and so forth, and that facility employed like 600
people or something who are Mexican citizens.
I had asked if the Department might talk to the State
Department in the interim and see, knowing the conditions in
that part of Mexico, if there was some other way which we could
transform that facility. We talked a little bit about tropical
fruits, about coffee, et cetera. Have you done any follow-up on
that?
Mr. Figueroa. Unfortunately, Congresswoman Kaptur, I have
not done much follow-up on that specific issue.
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Dunn.
Mr. Dunn. Congresswoman, I have traveled to Mexico, met
with my counterpart, Sub-Secretary Gurria, as well as Minister
of Agriculture Arroyo, to talk about this very issue. I talked
to our ambassador in Mexico. He and I had planned a trip down
to Chiapas to take a firsthand look, but have not been able to
do that, to date, because our schedules have conflicted. But
that is something that is very high on his list of things to do
as well.
Ms. Kaptur. I am really glad to hear that.
I asked Dr. Figueroa because he had made a practical
suggestion to me last year. So that is why I was interested in
hearing what he had to say. But I am extremely interested in
that, as you know, and we do not need to do anything to further
destabilize that part of our continent.
concentration
I wanted to thank Mr. Baker and your colleagues for
conducting one of your listening sessions in the Midwest, in
our part of the Midwest. We had, as you know, over 140
producers. Your fine staff members who are sitting in the
audience were there. They did a good job. Could you enlighten
the committee a bit on what you learned from speaking to
producers around the country and what you plan to do as a
follow-up to those meetings.
Mr. Baker. Yes. This was basically a whole rollout of our
information. We did an investigation of the upper Midwest hog
slaughter procurement, and we took our findings to the people
to provide information. We found that the smaller producers may
not have been producing the higher quality hogs like the larger
producers were. Smaller producers were not taking contracts
like the larger producers and maybe did not have access to the
contract availability that the larger producers did.
We heard it loud and clear in some meetings that contracts
were available, but they did not want to make these kind of
commitments that you have to make to get into the contract
business.
I think, from what we learned, that the price being
reported on hogs was not the actual price of what hogs were
trading for. Hogs were trading at a higher figure than the base
price being reported. This was significant. Since this has been
pointed out, Ag Marketing Services started reporting a higher
base hog price. As I traveled the last two years, I heard
people say, ``We sold our hogs for $4 over the top''. You do
not sell hogs $4 over the top. You sell them for $4 over the
reported top. So, let USDA get the information out there, get
it all reported and let people know where they fall in the
price structure.
We saw hogs quoted and sold for as high as $7 over the top.
Our focus is in packer procurement in the hog complexes in the
Midwest, and we hope to do a lot more work there with your help
in our budget.
And, the roll-out has been beneficial. The producers that
we have talked to, by and large, are very appreciative of
ourlooking at this. We conducted an investigation in 1996, but the
rollout fell at a time when there were depressed prices in the hog
industry. The biggest complaint we heard was that our information was
not timely, and that was a valid complaint. The investigation happened
two years before we rolled out the findings.
But because we were there at a time when the prices were
depressed, we could address, along with the other agencies that
went with us, concerns farmers had about price and market power
and being able to get into the market.
Ms. Kaptur. Do you intend, Mr. Baker, to have a final
report that then shows which policies you are going to
implement within the Department or what types of initiatives
you are going to have as a result of those meetings?
Mr. Baker. Yes, we have a report. A final report has been
made, our initiatives are moving forward, and we have an
additional investigation underway. Also, out of this, we
undertook three additional investigations that we are pursuing
in the pork complex.
Ms. Kaptur. To the extent you can provide your summary
report to the record----
Mr. Baker. Yes, I can.
Ms. Kaptur [continuing]. Could you do that, please?
Mr. Baker. Yes, I can.
Ms. Kaptur. I would be very, very interested in that.
While your people were in Ohio, what was interesting was
that we had people in that room who were burying animals at the
very same time that our feeding kitchens in our adjacent cities
needed food.
And so as I look at the Agricultural Marketing Service and
I think about what you can do as an Agency, as a Department, I
hope that, as you think about procurement, and you think about
ways of marketing and how you reach people, that--and I was
just talking with Mr. Nethercutt about this--how we are able to
focus our purchases on farmers.
How can we do a better job of targeting some of those
people that ended up in those rooms and without doing too much
damage to the pricing system overall? And if there are any
actions we can take this year, I know from the emergency bill
last year, some of those payments are going to be going out,
but as we sit here today, they are burying animals. That just
does not seem like the best solution, certainly for the farmer
and certainly for those in need in our country.
Any insights you might have from those hearings where you
could give us advice as we proceed through the first
supplemental we will be having and maybe a second supplemental
and whatever our appropriation bill will be for this year, I,
for one, would be very grateful.
I know others want to ask questions.
Mr. Baker. We will submit it for the record.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 475-508 -- The official Committee Record contains additional
material here]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Bonilla.
Australian Cattle
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Chairman.
Dr. Reed, I would like to start with you, if I could. We
have had a concern since last fall, when there was an effort to
move some Australian cattle through Mexico, and, as a result of
that, we put some language in the conference report asking you
to establish some protocols on verification procedures, to
establish permanent country-of-origin marking requirements for
each county or region requesting to export livestock to the
U.S. We have not seen those protocols yet, and I am wondering
when those might be available. We are getting a lot of calls
from ranchers back home.
Dr. Reed. We are working on those protocols with Mexico,
and we expect to have a North American protocol, with Canada,
the U.S., and Mexico all having the identical standard.
Right now, there are some protocol differences between the
U.S. and Mexico when cattle originate in North America, but
this does not fully address situations like the cattle coming
in from Australia. We did not anticipate thatMexico or other
countries would broker cattle coming through to the U.S. There are some
additional controls that need to be worked out so that all three of the
North American countries are the same.
Mr. Bonilla. There is no attempt to move any more cattle
from Australia? You have not heard anything about that, have
you?
Dr. Reed. No. We would receive a request for an export
permit from Mexico. And we would know it is a third party. But
we have not received such a request.
Wildlife Services
Mr. Bonilla. I want to move now, Dr. Reed, to the animal
damage control program. I have a lot of sheep and goat
ranchers, as you probably know, in my congressional district.
The pilot gunner positions were lost, which shut down the
fixed-wing operations in that part of the State, and
specifically right around the area of Fort Stockton, Texas.
My understanding is that you still have the aircraft
available, but are just short of the manpower to fly the plane.
Is that true? And is there any way that we can work with you to
get this up and running again?
Dr. Reed. Let me ask my expert, Bob Acort.
I have just been informed that that should not be a
problem. We will see what is transpiring there and try to get
those folks back in the air.
Tick Riders
Mr. Bonilla. I appreciate that very much.
I want to move now to another issue that may be somewhat
unique to my area, and that is the tick riders that watch for
the fever ticks to prevent them from coming across the Mexican
border. They are almost out of the old days. They ride for days
out in the brush country in some dangerous conditions with very
limited resources. One of my staff from district office, my
district director, has actually spent some time riding out with
them to see what they face. I think they, quite frankly, are
overlooked sometimes. They are at the end of the country
logistically, and they are doing something that really does not
have a lot of interest beyond the area along the Mexican
border.
I am wondering if you are aware that this program is
inadequately funded and these guys are really struggling out
there to make sure that we are not infected with some disease
coming across the border. It is very important, especially, I
would hope, in light of the administration's concern about
spreading disease coming from other parts of the world.
Dr. Reed. Congressman, we know that those tick riders are
truly the last of a breed. We have maintained their funding in
the fiscal year 2000 budget request. We know that it is the
only way we can maintain surveillance in that area. Nobody has
figured out a better way of performing this valuable inspection
work. We plan to maintain current funding levels for this
activity.
Mr. Bonilla. But more specifically, not only do we want to
maintain them, but the people out there are struggling just to
keep their nose above water because of the lack of resources. I
also may want to discuss their pay grades, separately at a
later date. My understanding is that they have been operating
at a pay level lower than a lot of their counterparts who are
doing similar work in other Federal agencies policing borders.
This is more my concern. I wonder if you are aware that
they have been, frankly, only maintained and really not given
what they need to do their job well.
Dr. Reed. I was not aware of the inspectors' pay and grade
inequity issues. I will review the situation and set up a
meeting to discuss it with you.
Mr. Bonilla. I would really like to do that.
Mr. Dunn. Usually, when we do this, we call it a desk
audit, but I guess in this case it would be a saddle audit----
Mr. Bonilla. That is right.
Mr. Dunn. I would like to take a moment to talk about the
many fine men and women that we have in all of Marketing and
Regulatory Programs. They are on the front line, putting
themselves in extreme danger, as the tick riders do. I am sorry
to report a couple of fire bombings of some of our Wildlife
Services offices. This gives us a great deal of concern. We
look favorably to working very closely with the committee to
improve the well-being of those individuals that serve all of
us so well.
Mr. Bonilla. My understanding is they need spray dip
machines and treated corn to feed wildlife. There is probably
not a real long list. It is not a big-budget item, but it is
extremely important down there, and I am looking forward to
working with you on this particular issue, Dr. Reed.
Screwworm
I am going to move now to a screwworm issue. As you noted
in your testimony earlier, a screwworm larva was collected from
a goat in Edwards County, which is also right in the heart of
my district. This gave many of my producers a real scare, and I
want to commend you, first of all, for quickly responding and
doing what you had to do to deal with the situation. I also
agree that this does clearly demonstrate the need for constant
vigilance because you never know when something is going to pop
up.
What was the final assessment of this incident in Edwards
County, and do you know how the goat contracted the screwworm,
and have you continued surveillance in this region to see if
there are any other problems out there?
Dr. Reed. Let me start by answering your last question
first. We are continuing surveillance efforts. It gave us a
real scare to find a single screwworm anywhere in the United
States. We have performed all of the epidemiologic tests to
determine how this screwworm got to Edwards County. It was the
only incident around. We inspected all of the surrounding farms
and found no additional cases. We are exploring how the actual
screwworm larva was submitted to the lab. There were some
questions about an old screwworm bottle and things like that.
So we are still looking into it, but the bottom line is we are
maintaining surveillance of nearby premises and have not found
any additional screwworm cases.
Mr. Bonilla. I appreciate that. We are going to be keeping
an eye on that situation as well.
boll weevil
My last question has to do with the boll weevil eradication
program. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes a $12 million cut
to this program. It has been a very successful program. It is
very important with new eradication zones entering the program
every year the budget be maintained. The program stretches all
across the South into Texas and New Mexico now.
The cost share provided by APHIS is about 4 percent of the
total program. I understand that about $4 million of the
current $16 million is USDA overhead. The growers have
expressed a strong desire for USDA to continue to be involved
in the program and, in turn, have shown their strong financial
support.
Other parts of USDA's budget emphasizes a desire to reduce
pesticide usage and develop pest management systems for crops
that are more IPM-based. This is the goal of boll weevil
eradication. It has been successful in accomplishing this goal
in many States, such as Georgia and South Carolina.
Why would APHIS look to cut funding at this critical time
just as the program is expanding and has proven to be a
successful program?
Dr. Reed. Let me answer you two ways. Boll weevil
eradication is a successful program and APHIS funds are
currently passed through to growers. Loans are available to
people who grow cotton, but who also enjoy the benefit, when
there are no weevils. The payback is $12 dollars for every
dollar spent on the program.
We have, basically, a good system of providing technical
assistance which has been proven throughout the Southeast and
will be used through Louisiana, Texas, and into New Mexico. We
see to it that programs that are currently involved in
eradication efforts or that have voted to begin an eradication
program--and they must have a positive vote to begin an
eradication program--are going to continue to be successful,
and APHIS will continue to support them.
But the loan program--the obvious answer is not that APHIS
is trying to get out of it. We pass most of the money through
any way. We do have the right kind of knowledge to make active
eradication programs successful. We will continue to provide
technical assistance to make eradication possible.
Mr. Bonilla. This is another area I really want to work
closely with you on. It seems like all of my questions fall
under your jurisdiction, and have a direct impact on my
constituents. So I look forward to working with you on some of
these issues we have discussed here today.
Thank you for your time today, Dr. Reed, gentlemen.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am so
excited, I do not know where to start here with these
gentlemen. [Laughter.]
Let me start by saying to Mr. Dunn thank you for working
with our folks on the citrus canker issue. The meeting that you
held last week was very helpful in helping us understand what
could be done and what needed to be done. I wanted to thank you
for that.
And also to Dr. Figueroa I wanted to say I apologize for
missing our meeting in the office today. You know how it works
up here when they call a vote.
Ms. Kaptur. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Boyd. Yes.
Ms. Kaptur. I just thought, perhaps, for some of the
members who may not represent citrus companies and some of the
members of the audience, you could explain how serious that
problem is.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much, Ms. Kaptur. I will in my
questioning.
boll weevil
But before I do that, I want to turn to Dr. Reed and
follow-up on the question of my friend from Texas, Mr. Bonilla,
as he walks out the door, to let you know that there is a
member sitting on the other side of the chairman that has a
keen and long interest in the boll weevil eradication program.
Probably most of my work with your shop over my
professional career has been with APHIS because of my
involvement when you expanded that program into Georgia,
Florida and Southeast Alabama in the eighties. You remember we
had some cotton in Florida, too. We had 25,000 acres back in
1985 when we started that program, and now we are running about
200,000 acres as a result of your program's success.
I just wanted to relate to you, and to the other members of
this panel and to the members of this audience what that has
meant to us.
Prior to the eradication of the boll weevil, when we had to
fight that pest on a regular basis, I had constituent farmers
that sprayed their cotton an average of 18 times a year. Now, I
want you to think about this in terms of costs; that is, dollar
cost and environmental cost--18 times a year. Currently, our
average spraying in the area that I represent probably is two
times a year. So we have reduced it to almost 10 percent.
Two other things happened. One, is the increase in the
yield that is inherent when you eliminate a pest. The other
thing that is important to us is to think about is all of those
organophosphates and other chemicals that we were using on our
land and in the atmosphere, to fight that pest.
I want you to do, whatever you have to do, to make sure
that we do not allow that kind of pest or that particular pest
to return to attack our cotton crops. It is just imperative
that we continue to fund this successful program.
I know you have got a 70/30 share program or used to have,
at least when I was first involved with it. I do not know what
it is now. It looks like it may be 3/97 share based on the
budget proposal. But I have strong feelings about that small
figure in the budget proposal and would like, Mr. Chairman, to
make sure that we restore funding because that is a serious
issue for us.
I want to ask you, Dr. Reed that what I hearyou saying is
that it's just an issue of reallocating dollars. We still have got
containment and maintenance costs, and we are still expanding the
program. We are still moving the program into new areas, but you are
just going to ask the States and the growers to pick up more of the
costs; is that what I hear you saying?
Dr. Reed. That is basically it, and we still want to do
surveillance and trapping to make sure that this is not a
problem that comes back and the goal of eradication gets away
from us.
Mr. Boyd. Well, I want you to know that I am with you in
making sure that we have adequate dollars needed to control
that pest.
brucellosis
Secondly, on brucellosis, I notice there is a cutback on
your brucellosis program. But I read the narrative that you had
presented, and basically it appears that that is a cutback
because we are winning that war. Is that a fair assessment?
Dr. Reed. That is a fair assessment. We have got five herds
left in the U.S. under quarantine, and we plan to have zero
herds by the end of the summer, so that is a war we are
winning. Again, just like boll weevil, we have to be vigilant
and watch for reinfection to avoid a problem that hurts our
farmers and keeps us from moving their livestock freely.
foreign pests
Mr. Boyd. Now, I want to turn to--and maybe, Mr. Dunn, I
will try to paraphrase from the comments that you made--because
I want to turn to the issue of citrus canker and not only that
pest, but others that come in through our ports because of our
very, very aggressive trade policy that we have. Your words
were, and I paraphrase, it is important, if we are going to be
in a global market, and then you went on to explain about
exotic pests, phytosanitary issues, all of those issues, and
that we devote adequate resources in these areas, and we have
not done that. I want the staff, if you will, to pass out a
chart that I have for the record, Mr. Chairman, to you and to
the members of the panel, and I want to read a few items from
it.
These are pests that have impacted Florida agriculture just
over the last four years: foreign pests, citrus canker, Medfly,
thrips palmi--that affects bell peppers--brown citrus aphid,
citrus leafminer, Oriental fruit fly, sweet potato white fly,
pine-shoot beetle, leather leaf fern anthracnose, equine
piroplasmosis--excuse me. I am not good on these scientific
names here--hard water disease, and tropical soda apple.
The State of Florida, in the last four years has spent
about $32 million fighting to control these pests. The
University of Florida has spent about $15 million on research
to combat these pests. We estimate the industry costs for
control to be about $100 million, and we estimate the impact on
sales to be in the neighborhood of about two-thirds of a
billion dollars.
The highlight of that is the citrus canker issue, no doubt
about it, because those are where the big dollars are. That is
where the industry has been significantly harmed. We got a
problem in Florida that started within 100 yards of the Miami
Airport, came in on a plant from overseas, through Customs, got
right by your people, (APHIS inspectors) and now we have a
serious problem that threatens our entire citrus industry.
agricultural quarantine inspection
I have two questions relative to that. One is, on page 3,
Dr. Reed, in your testimony, the 1998 APHIS officers inspected
an all-time high of 76 million international air, maritime, and
land border passengers. Now what percentage of the total
passengers that came into this country is 76 million?
Dr. Reed. These are just from the international flights.
Mr. Boyd. Right.
Mr. Dunn. That would be 100 percent.
Mr. Boyd. That is 100 percent.
Mr. Dunn. Yes, 76 million.
Mr. Boyd. The other question then is to educate me how does
this work. Does Customs receive the passenger first, and then
if there is a problem, refer the passenger to your inspectors
or how does that work and how can we improve it to make sure we
are not introducing these pests on a daily basis?
Dr. Reed. Actually, passengers go through Customs first,
and then Customs refers them to APHIS based on the declaration
card that is completed upon arrival into this country.
We are working with Customs to make the clearing process
better because we know that people remark to us that they were
on a farm or that they have agricultural products in their
possession and nothing ever happened. Nobody ever asked them
any questions. So we have got to do a better job of getting
Customs to refer travelers to APHIS so we can ask the right
questions and then examine the agricultural products.
Mr. Boyd. So it is a matter of educating Customs folks
better. Is that what I hear you saying?
Dr. Reed. Well, that is partially true. We also are
experiencing significant growth of international airports so we
have increased staffing issues to ensure we have the right
numbers of people there to examine the flights.
citrus canker
If you would permit me to comment on citrus canker. This
bacterial disease is easy to spread, whether from plant
material, clothing, or equipment. We are particularly worried
that it is going to get away from us, and we may not be able to
do anything about it unless we get the commitment to go after
it aggressively.
Mr. Boyd. You are not nearly as worried as some of the
folks back home that are feeding their families with the income
generated by those citrus trees, I can tell you.
Dr. Reed. Well, I know it will impact producers enormously
because not only is it going to destroy trees, but will also
restrict the movement of fruit out of an area, and the fresh
fruit market could possibly be eliminated.
Mr. Boyd. For the members of the panel, for the members of
the committee and the audience, when you get citrus canker
introduced into a grove, first of all, it comes under
quarantine by USDA officials to prevent the spread of it, and
your export markets are immediately closed because the other
countries will not have anything to do with you if you have
citrus canker.
Secondly, the only way to cure it is to push the tree and
burn it and leave the land idle for two years, and we do that
with a buffer zone circle around it of clean trees. We have
been through this in Florida in the late eighties, and it is
not a pretty sight. I just want you guys to know whatever this
member of the committee can do to help you guys assist us, we
have to fight the spread of this disease. It is a very, very
serious thing, and that is why I want to thank you forhelping
us figure out how we solve this problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Nethercutt.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, gentlemen.
tck smut
The last four years that I have been on this subcommittee I
believe every time I have asked you about the issue of TCK Smut
relative to China and why that market seems to be resistant to
the export of our wheat from my State of Washington? In fact,
last year I had a response from Mr. Medley with regard to this
subject and he answered in response to a question I made about
TCK Smut and the Brazil analysis and then how that relates to
China, and he says, 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, the Brazil determination, and enhance
our chances of establishing scientifically-based criteria in
China as well.
My question is where are we one year later, several years
later, as far as I am concerned and are we any closer to being
able to deal with China on this particular issue of TCK Smut?
Mr. Dunn. I am delighted to report that I was in Brazil
last year where we signed the agreement which Brazil dropped
their objections on TCK. It was a very big day for me and one
that I felt very proud of the men and women in APHIS and being
able to sign the agreement.
We are continuing to work with China. You can imagine their
concern when I told them about problems with their solid-wood
packing material.
Mr. Nethercutt. Right.
Mr. Dunn. They immediately put up a quid pro quo on TCK. We
have members of USTR and State Department even as we speak in
negotiations with China. We are getting closer to an agreement.
Mr. Nethercutt. How do you quantify that for me, Mr. Dunn?
And I appreciate the difficulty of dealing in international
relations but what do we need to do here? What will grant us
the breakthrough or, in all honesty, is there not going to be a
breakthrough? Is China just resistant, they do not want to do
it, and, you know, we are sort of having to say, we accept
that? What is it?
Mr. Dunn. Mr. Nethercutt, we have done everything we can on
it, technician-to-technician, scientist-to-scientist basis, to
point out that this is merely a quality concern, it is not a
major disease. It is at a policy level. We have USTR and State
working as hard as they can right now to resolve this matter.
We will continue working technician-to-technician,
scientist-to-scientist, giving them every bit of information
that they ask for, conducting tours, showing them what we have
here in the United States, and why we do not see it as a
problem. Ultimately, it is going to be a policy decision.
Mr. Nethercutt. Are you optimistic or are you resigned to
the idea that this is a very tough issue to try to break
through and we should not get our hopes up?
What more can you say? It may not be a fair question to
you.
Mr. Dunn. I am guardedly optimistic that we are making
progress.
Mr. Nethercutt. Are you communicating with State and USTR
on a regular basis?
Mr. Dunn. Yes, we are. When Ambassador Barshefsky went to
negotiate, we provided a great deal of information to her. Our
people, as well as the ORN-AG service people are meeting with
them, as well as the Secretary. So, yes, we are working
extremely close on this issue. This is well coordinated within
the United States.
Mr. Nethercutt. Would you kindly, to the extent you are
able, provide this committee with an update on the current
status of activity with State and USTR as it relates to your
offices or USDA in general?
Mr. Dunn. We will do that.
[The information follows:]
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is the
lead agency on any trade issue. For example, if a serious SPS-
related trade issue comes to the attention of the
Administration, we must work with the USTR before any SPS issue
is taken to the World Trade Organization's Dispute Settlement
Body (DSB). The USTR also chairs the Trade Policy Staff
Committee, comprised of many interested government agencies,
which decides which issues go before the Dispute Settlement
Body. All USDA Agencies work together before submitting an
issue to the USTR and the Trade Policy Staff Committee. Once an
issue is presented to the DSB, APHIS provides the technical
information which is the basis for the U.S. argument.
The Department of State would always be involved in any
sensitive issue related to foreign policy matters. Since State
is also a member of the Trade Policy Staff Committee, they must
also understand the SPS issues and approve any decision to take
an issue to the WTO.
alar residues
Mr. Nethercutt. That would be great.
I just have one more question, Mr. Chairman, I do not want
to abuse my time here.
You, I am sure, gentlemen, have seen the latest salvo, I
guess, that has been thrown relative to the safety of our foods
and vegetables. It is sort of the 10 year anniversary of Alar.
And I have seen recently some consumer groups coming out and
saying our food is not safe to eat and our children should not
eat vegetables and fruits.
What are you doing to combat this? I think this is a huge
red herring. I think it is a misinformation campaign as best I
can tell and if I am wrong on that you tell me, since this is
your business.
My sense is it is unfair to the consuming public. I hope
that your agency or someone in USDA deems it appropriate to
respond to whatever junk science might be out there relative to
this argument that there is some great danger if we eat fruits
and vegetables in America.
If I am over-stating it, tell me that, too.
Mr. Figueroa. Mr. Nethercutt, the two reports that you are
referring to--Consumer Reports issued a report and then that
was followed by the Environmental Working Group that followed-
up within days or weeks. First of all, we were surprised in the
sense that generally in the past we have gotten a lot of press
calls, at least in the Agricultural Marketing Service. It was
very quiet vis-a-vis some other things that have happened in
the past.
So, that is, I think, some good news in the sense that
other media did not, at least, inquire at our agency to follow-
up on this story.
Both reports relied on our pesticide data program data. It
is our position that we are generating data and other
individuals or entities it is for them to interpret the data
that we report.
Thirdly, a number of the research and promotion boards have
implemented some programs to react to some of these scares, if
you will, that I think have been very effective. And I think
that those plans are in place specifically for these purposes,
so, that when and if they get inquiries about some of these
issues being raised they have the materials prepared to respond
accordingly. And I think that they have been effective, at
least in this case.
Mr. Nethercutt. Your agencies, I assume, are satisfied that
there is not a safety risk, that the consumer does not have to
be reacting to these kinds of reports, that there is safety in
our--notwithstanding the development under the PDP--that the
consuming public is safe, is that a fair statement?
Mr. Figueroa. As you know, Mr. Nethercutt, we have another
agency within the USDA that is entirely responsible for the
safety of food. And it is not our position nor is it in our
mission statement but it is clearly within AMS' role to
facilitate the marketing of wholesome foods and I think we are,
indeed, meeting that mission responsibility.
Mr. Nethercutt. All right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Dickey.
Mr. Dickey. I want to thank Mr. Farr for allowing me to do
this and I want him to know that our relationship now has a
chance to get started. [Laughter.]
fish eating birds
Mr. Dickey. I just want you to know that. I have two
questions.
It is about cormorants and egrets and other fish-eating
birds that are just taking us by storm in Arkansas. We seem to
be breeding these birds by feeding them with our fish. Here is
my question: How much success has Wildlife Services had
studying fish-eating birds in an effort to control their impact
on the aquaculture and sports-fishing industry?
Dr. Reed. Congressman, we know that cormorants are a
problem in your State and in others because they can devastate
both bait fish and farm-raised fish. We have gained some
knowledge in developing control management plans, but it is a
difficult problem that continues to move on us.
Wildlife Services is committed to helping all the
industries associated with these kinds of bird problems with
fish.
Mr. Dickey. I think we have done everything we know to do
to scare them away and we have used shotguns and then we have
these automatic sound devices. They are actually landing on
these things now. [Laughter.]
So, what I am saying to you that it is just unbelievable
and the birds are getting bigger and bigger, you see, because
they are eating the fish in our ponds.
Mr. Dunn. We have, in Wildlife Services, a group in our
Starkville, Mississippi, area that studies habitat
manipulation. We also have a tremendous problem with black
birds that are consuming rice in your part of the world and
sunflower seeds up in the Northern Plains. The Atlantic
migratory bird flyway area seems to be a growing problem where
we must consider both non-lethal and lethal means of
assistance.
Mr. Dickey. One last question. In the budget do you have
more or less money or the same for whatever studies you are
making on this?
Dr. Reed. I am assured that we have the same amount.
Mr. Dickey. Then I have one more question. If you got
additional funds, what could you do to help with this problem?
Dr. Reed. This problem requires good, sound research to
find other methods of controlling these bird populations and
predations. The National Wildlife Research Center conducts this
type of research and would be allocated additional funding if
it were provided.
Mr. Dickey. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for taking me out of order and Mr.
Farr.
Mr. Skeen. Have you tried chili on those birds? [Laughter.]
Mr. Dickey. That is a country in South America, is it not?
Mr. Skeen. No, it is a Southwestern dish.
Mr. Farr.
argentine citrus
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank my colleague from Florida for giving us the
best reason to buy California oranges. But I want to follow-up
on an issue that is of interest to everybody in this
subcommittee and it regards APHIS' issue with Argentine citrus.
I understand that APHIS is using funds in this next fiscal year
to consider a rule which will permit fruit that admittedly is
carrying one or moreplant diseases to enter the U.S.?
Dr. Reed. APHIS does not have a rule that would permit
quarantinable diseases to come into the U.S.
Mr. Farr. Do we allow fruits in now under the 1912 Plant
Quarantine Act that have any kind of diseases whether
quarantine or not?
Dr. Reed. Nothing of quarantine significance.
Mr. Farr. What does that mean?
Dr. Reed. Certain conditions would be permitted that are
quality-related or that will not pose a problem to any of our
producers here.
Mr. Farr. So, you do not have a policy that allows a
diseased fruit to enter the U.S.?
Dr. Reed. No, APHIS does not.
Mr. Farr. And are you planning to allow diseased plants and
vegetables to enter the U.S.?
Dr. Reed. I am not aware that we would allow diseased
plants and vegetables to enter the U.S. either.
Mr. Farr. Our office has been told that there is a problem
with what you are allowing to come into the U.S. now with the
Argentine citrus, are you aware of that problem?
Dr. Reed. I am aware of the request from Argentina to
permit citrus under certain conditions to enter this country.
There has been a pest risk analysis conducted by the U.S. on
that commodity that would come from Argentina that has been
made public. We recently concluded the comment period on a
proposed rule.
Mr. Farr. And then after that, what happens? Can the
imports then come in?
Dr. Reed. I am not sure if this is something we can
discuss. Once completed, we would be glad to discuss it with
you, Congressman. [Laughter.]
Mr. Dunn. The Administrator's concern is, are we in ex-
parte because we are in the process of making a rule and we
usually do not discuss it until we have actually finished a
rule. But we can talk about process in that very general
manner, Congressman Farr.
There is a desire for us to have trade. Just as we are
asking Argentina to accept citrus from Florida, and we can
certify to them that it is from an area free from citrus canker
or an area free from Medfly, and they would accept our
regionalization rule. We would accept their regionalization
rule. If we have done a pest risk analysis and they have proven
to our scientists that they have protocols in place, that would
assure us that diseased fruits and vegetables would not enter,
then we should allow entry. This procedure follows WTO rules.
Mr. Farr. As you can tell from Mr. Boyd's questioning, this
is an issue that States with citrus growers are very concerned
about. One of the difficulties we have is how to keep American
growers viable and that is in the best interest of the national
economy.
We are very concerned about the possibility of adopting
rules that would allow citrus into the U.S. with more than just
the citrus, but also the problems that have been spoken about.
animal welfare
Let me shift to another area and we can talk a little more
about citrus at a later date. In the animal care and animal
welfare area, Congress adopted in 1966, the Animal Welfare Act.
I understand that under this law you have to inspect
approximately 10,000 regulated facilities, is that correct?
Mr. Dunn. That is correct.
Mr. Farr. And that your budget for these inspections has
been level funded for several years?
Mr. Dunn. It has been approximately $9 million since 1991.
Mr. Farr. How many field inspectors do you have to cover
the 10,000 facilities?
Dr. Reed. About 70.
Mr. Farr. How often are the required facilities inspected?
Dr. Reed. We average about one inspection per facility per
year. Some facilities get inspected more than others based on a
risk assessment and their potential problems. Others who have a
good track record do not get inspected as often.
Mr. Farr. I have a letter here from the American Veterinary
Medical Association and it is signed by 480 entities. It is a
broad coalition of veterinary, research and animal welfare
groups. They are urging that the budget be increased to $13
million to adequately address this problem. 10,000 required
facilities with 70 inspectors is just not enough.
Also there are some concerns about problems with airline
shipment of animals. Are the field inspectors not the same
inspectors that have to do the airline shipments?
Dr. Reed. Yes, our inspectors who review facilities also
inspect animals being shipped on airlines.
Mr. Farr. The problem with a lack of inspectors is
increasing because we are carrying more animals on airlines.
And would you get back to us on exactly what funding you need
to do an adequate job on this? I am going to be seeking an
increase in the budget for this amount to improve the
efficiency and credibility of your inspections.
horse protection
Lastly, I would like to ask you about an area surrounding
the controversy on the new strategic plan for the enforcement
of the Horse Protection Act. Can you tell me how many horse
shows APHIS inspectors attend?
Dr. Reed. Yes, our inspectors attend about 40 to 50 shows a
year.
Mr. Farr. And what is that as a representative of the
whole, about 10 percent of the problem, less than 10 percent?
Dr. Reed. Yes, it is probably less than 10 percent.
Mr. Farr. How many inspectors are involved in this program?
Dr. Reed. About 35.
Mr. Farr. And what do you do when inspectors are not there?
Dr. Reed. There is usually a horse industry official that
is also responsible for inspecting horses for soring. Our
veterinary inspectors monitor those officials to make sure they
properly identify a sore horse.
Mr. Farr. So you are sort of turning it over, you are
ceding authority to the industry?
To inspect itself?
Dr. Reed. I guess I would not characterize it quite that
way. I would say that the industry has taken responsibility to
make sure they do not permit sore horses in shows. They enforce
the soring and scarring rules under the Horse Protection Act.
There has not always been consistent interpretation of how
these standards apply in all cases. We have a horse inspection
operating plan out there and we do try to work with these
industry officials to make sure that offenders are put out of
the horse show business.
Mr. Farr. Well, Congress has authorized the expenditure of
$500,000 in this arena, and I do not know, what is your
appropriation now?
Dr. Reed. About $361,000.
Mr. Farr. Do you think that you need more?
Dr. Reed. We know there are many horse shows and we know
expectations go beyond our current resource levels. We have
people dedicated to attending horse shows to make sure rules
are enforced and sore horses are not shown. The way to make
progress is to bring some of these bad offenders up on legal
charges and get them out of the horse show business.
Mr. Farr. Have we been doing that?
Dr. Reed. Yes, we have.
Mr. Farr. And you have been monitoring the industry
inspectors?
The designated qualified person program?
Dr. Reed. Yes, We monitor them, we make sure that we are
consistent. Dr. DeHaven and his staff have gone to Tennessee
and surrounding areas numerous times throughout the last year.
There is agreement that, when a horse is sore, everyone is
in agreement. There have been some initial disputes over the
amount of scarring needed to disqualify a horse. We are working
through issues such as these. Some of the discussions appear to
seem subjective depending on individuals familiarity with the
horse show industry.
The objective is making sure that sore horses are not shown
or sold. The trainers, owners, or others responsible for using
unlawful methods such as hot mustard or pressure-shoeing to
sore horses, should be forced out of the horse show business.
Mr. Farr. If more money was appropriated, how would you use
it?
Dr. Reed. We would be able to attend more horse shows by
having more inspectors able to examine show horses.
Mr. Farr. Okay. Thank you very much.
No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mrs. Emerson.
contract poultry growers
Mrs. Emerson. Thanks, Mr. Chairman
Mr. Baker, tell me what the status is of GIPSA's rule on
contract poultry growers and the contract poultry industry,
please?
Mr. Baker. The proposed rule on feed weighing in the
contract?
Mrs. Emerson. Yes. I want to know what the status is and
also perhaps what you learned from the comments that you all
received under the proposed rule-making
Mr. Baker. We proposed rule-making on feed weighing to
ensure integrity in the feed weighing system where feed becomes
part of the contract settlement.
That has cleared the Department and it has been moved to
the OMB. As soon as they get it back to us we will initiate the
rule-making but it is in OMB at this time.
Mrs. Emerson. And I am kind of curious--
Mr. Baker. That went this week.
Mrs. Emerson. This week
Mr. Baker. Yes, this week.
Mrs. Emerson. All right.
In the original announcement, the advanced notice of
proposed rule-making, one of the things that was included and
one of the things that my contract poultry growers are real
concerned about has to do with the procedures related to the
weighing of the live birds delivered to the processors.
And, so, that was included in this original announcement?
Mr. Baker. There were three original ones that were
included.
Mrs. Emerson. Right. Can you just tell me why you decided
not to address that particular issue in the proposed rule?
Mr. Baker. It would be addressed in a separate proposed
rule if we felt it was necessary. We are doing an investigation
in the industry today to determine if it is necessary that we
move forward on that one.
Mrs. Emerson. Do you have any idea when that investigation
might be concluded
Mr. Baker. I am told that that investigation has just
recently been concluded. We are examining the data on the
weighing issue.
Mrs. Emerson. And how soon might some information be
available to us?
Mr. Baker. It should be forthcoming within 60 days.
Mrs. Emerson. Within 60 days
Mr. Baker. Yes.
Mrs. Emerson. Okay. I would appreciate receiving whatever
report you all put out as soon as possible on that because my
growers are real concerned.
poultry concentration
Can you talk to me a little bit more about your personal
concern about the level of concentration in the
poultryindustry? Just, for example, in my district we only have one
processor offering contracts right now and this is a huge concern to my
folks, many of whom left grain production, for example, and row
cropping for chickens, because they thought that they would make a
little more money I suppose. But, needless to say, it is not turning
out that way and they have made huge investments and are in big trouble
right now.
Mr. Baker. The top four firms control about 50 percent of
the production. The top 8 or 10 firms probably account for
about 95 percent of the production. So, it has become highly
concentrated and there is a problem when there is only one firm
that a grower has a choice to produce for. There are no other
options.
We look at poultry concentration constantly because it is
happening throughout the Southeast. For the past four years we
have asked for this additional money to conduct poultry
investigations. We are asking again and I would appreciate
strong consideration for providing the money for the poultry
investigation area.
Mrs. Emerson. Well, you have a little passion in your voice
so I take it that means you are concerned about this.
Mr. Baker. I am most concerned about it.
Mrs. Emerson. Okay, thank you.
I wanted you to tell me you were most concerned about it
so, therefore----
Mr. Baker. If you had said that earlier I would have got on
it right quick. [Laughter.]
Instead of beating around the bush like I have done.
Mrs. Emerson. Yes.
Mr. Baker. But I am most concerned with it. People with
poultry growing contracts are selling a service. People's
livelihoods depend on that service. You are not selling a
product. Our people are gearing up--we are hiring and teaching
our personnel to work with people that are selling a service
instead of a product. But, we will need the money to get
involved. We cannot get there with the present system.
Mrs. Emerson. So, how much more do you need?
Mr. Baker. $750,000 to start.
Mrs. Emerson. And what will that do? What will you do with
that $750,000?
Mr. Baker. I will hire people with the expertise to get
right in the middle of the investigations of the poultry
companies. Those companies are large and complex and the
investigations will take an extensive period of time. But first
we need people that have the expertise to carry out those
investigations.
Mrs. Emerson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Baker. And we have already reorganized our offices in
Atlanta. We need to gear up that office. That money will be
focused strictly in the poultry.
Mrs. Emerson. I appreciate that.
Thank you.
And if you would like I would be glad to meet with you
further on this because this is really a big concern to me. We
will holler back at you.
mandatory price reporting
Dr. Figueroa, I share your grave concern and that of other
members of the committee about the high level of concentration
in the livestock industry. And I note that you highlighted in
your testimony the request for additional money to expand price
reporting programs. According to your proposal, how would this
pricing information be made available to producers and how
timely would it be made available?
Dr. Figueroa. Congresswoman, as you may be aware, we report
market news on a daily basis on a number of commodities whether
they are livestock products or fruit and vegetable products.
The additional money that we are requesting will expand not
only the number of reports but the size and types of reports on
the meat products, whether they are boxed beef products along
different parts of the market channel.
As you also are aware, these are strictly a voluntary
basis. We obtain this information voluntarily from the various
entities in the market place. So, we would increase our
outreach efforts to make sure that they would volunteer more of
this information.
In addition, we are interested in developing perhaps new
methodologies on how to interpret some of the price data so
that we can make it more user-friendly, if you will, to the
producer of the product and he or she can use it expeditiously
that particular day or the next day.
Mrs. Emerson. So, it would be made available say on the
Internet on a website or something like that?
Dr. Figueroa. Yes, Ma'am.
Mrs. Emerson. Okay.
To follow-up with that, what are your feelings about making
price reporting mandatory?
Dr. Figueroa. The issue of mandatory price reporting is an
issue that the Administration is supporting. I believe that the
concentration issue, as Secretary Dunn indicated a little
earlier, he was the chair of the Pork Crisis Task Force. I also
served on that task force and I became directly aware of the
crisis that was faced by all the farmers, the hog farmers in
this country. It is a serious issue. And I think mandatory
price reporting will address part of that problem.
Mrs. Emerson. Well, I appreciate that having been an
original co-sponsor of legislation to make that happen. Because
our livestock producers are hurting big time and I think that
is the only way to go.
So, I appreciate that. I came in late, Mr. Dunn, so I am
sorry I did not hear all of your testimony. Now, I have got one
other question that I have to ask on behalf of many of my
constituents and this goes directly to Dr. Reed.
invasive alien species
This has to do with alien species. The first time I heard
this, I really thought my constituents were joking when they
asked me about the Executive Order. They said they were
concerned about the fact that the President was going to sign
an Executive Order with regard to alien species. There are a
couple of questions I want to ask, one of which is an
explanation of what this national management plan is that you
all have.
First of all, can you tell me why you all did not pursue
this legislatively rather than through an Executive Order? And
then I want you to tell me more about the details of this.
Dr. Reed. I do not have an answer for you on why it was
pursued one way versus the other. The Executive Order was
signed on February 3, 1999. We have major concerns about pests
that are coming into this country and need to get a handle on
them before they get worse. Not the least of which is the brown
tree snake, for example, that is a terrible problem in Guam. We
are also concerned about it entering Hawaii and are conducting
research toensure we keep it out.
Overall this is something that we are just getting into and
are trying to get more and more of a handle on to make sure
that we do not have another Kudzu or another similar invasive
species.
Mrs. Emerson. I understand that but this national
management plan that you all are going to be a part of--because
I guess there are 20 Federal agencies or something involved--is
that something that will be created that you all are in the
design stage of?
Dr. Reed. Yes.
Mr. Dunn. And Congresswoman, in addition to not granting
new authority, the Executive Order was used because there are
so many Federal agencies that would be involved in the effort.
It ranges from the Department of Interior, Environmental
Protection Agency as well as USDA, and the Forest Service
within USDA as well as APHIS. So, we see it as a major problem.
Over the centuries there have been many alien species that
have been introduced in the United States and it is time to
shut the door on any new incursions.
Mrs. Emerson. And you can understand that people are afraid
that the Federal Government is going to come in and take over
their private property which is understandable from their point
of view, but I guess my big problem is that suddenly you all
are asking for money and for us to give you all money for
something that we have not authorized, and I just have a
philosophical problem with that.
Dr. Reed. If I could add, APHIS' mission is to keep foreign
pests and diseases out, and we do it all the time for animal
and a variety of plant pests and diseases now. We consider
plant and animal pest and disease exclusion as one of our prime
directives already and this continues with new pests and
disease incursions.
Whenever we eradicate a disease from this country, whether
it is avian influenza or hog cholera, it then becomes an alien
species that could enter again and devastate our producers. We
do not want that to happen.
Mrs. Emerson. Sure. No, and I do not have a problem with
that. It is just the process by which this all came up.
Thanks very much.
Mr. Farr. Will the gentlelady yield?
Mrs. Emerson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. Last year's research bill allowed for research
dollars to be used for eradication of invasive species. But the
protocol to do that requires consent by the landowner and a
program has to be locally based. There is a concern that this
is some kind of top-down process. It is actually just the
opposite. A lot of communities have invasive species, not just
affecting crops and animals but invasive species that are
affecting the forests and the wild-lands. Partnerships now are
being developed between local, State and the Federal Government
to form a plan of attack. But that always requires consent of
the landowner, whether it be a local government, a State
government, the Federal Government or private ownership.
Mrs. Emerson. I think your friends in California probably
do a little bit better job doing that than in Missouri as far
as getting the locals involved because somehow we usually find
out about it afterwards.
But, thank you.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, it has been very interesting
listening to the testimony and your answers to these questions.
The issue of these invasive or exotic pests seems to be one
that is getting more and more severe as time goes on. Is that
true in your experience?
Dr. Reed. The jeopardy for agriculture producers is
certainly increasing.
Mr. Hinchey. The jeopardy is increasing?
Dr. Reed. The jeopardy to our own producers is having a
pest or disease that would not only close an export market, but
would devastate an individual's production capability. They
would not be able to grow plants or animals for some period,
severely impacting their ability to produce revenue. These are
some of the things we worry about. Whether it is citrus canker,
hog cholera, or Medfly, we are interested in making sure that
these pests and diseases are excluded and not present here.
Production areas free of pests and diseases help us in a
variety of ways. It helps us move agricultural products within
the States, it helps us move products out of the country, and
it is advantageous for us to tell other countries about how we
control and regulate pest and disease situations. They then
adopt a system that is similar to ours.
Mr. Hinchey. In other words, having a program is effective
in marketing produce?
Dr. Reed. Absolutely.
Mr. Hinchey. Because you can point to that program and say,
because we have this program you are less likely to have these
invasive pests coming into your jurisdiction?
Dr. Reed. Yes, that can be the case, but also, we can
certify when products leave the country that they are free of a
pest or disease. It makes it easier to move agricultural
products out of the country.
asian long-horned beetle
Mr. Hinchey. How serious a problem is the Asian long-horn
beetle?
Dr. Reed. It is really a serious problem. We are glad to
have found it but we wish it was found sooner because of the
tree devastation. We are conducting extensive surveys to
determine the scope and area of problem.
Cutting down nice-sized trees is heartbreaking for
residents, as well as for others involved. We must, however,
grind those trees to ensure that all larva is destroyed.
We want to eliminate the pest as soon as possible so that
we do not have to spend more money cutting trees and then
replacing them.
Mr. Hinchey. Where does it come from?
What is its origin?
Dr. Reed. We know it came from Asia. We have found the
larva in packing materials that came from China.
import/export
Mr. Hinchey. Who has responsibility for examination and
certifying the standard of feed that is fed to cattle or other
meat producers?
Dr. Reed. Generally, the Food and Drug Administration.
Mr. Hinchey. Are you involved in that at all?
Dr. Reed. We get involved if we suspect a tampering
incident, along with FDA or if we suspect terrorist activity or
an attempt to spread foreign matter or material through feed.
Mr. Hinchey. Oh, okay, but not on a routine basis?
Dr. Reed. No, not on a routine basis.
Mr. Hinchey. Are you familiar with Exotic Newcastle
disease?
Dr. Reed. I am, indeed.
Mr. Hinchey. And is it true that France is free of it?
Dr. Reed. Yes, the French are free of Exotic Newcastle
disease.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, you recently certified foie gras from
France for export to the United States and the reason that it
had not been certified previously, as I understand it, is that
there was some question about the existence of Exotic Newcastle
disease in France. And, so, I am assuming that since you have
recently allowed French foie gras to come into the country,
that Exotic Newcastle disease is no longer a problem.
Dr. Reed. Yes, that would be the criteria. Whether it is
French foie gras or some other product, we do not want
Newcastle in the U.S. We had a small outbreak in California not
too long ago and we quickly eliminated it.
Mr. Hinchey. Right. I understand that. I understand you do
not want it and you are not going to bring it in here. But you
recently certified French foie gras and I am just wondering
what the basis for that decision was?
Dr. Reed. We will receive a petition to permit the entry of
an animal product into the U.S. Before APHIS will allow that
product to enter, certain conditions must be met. One of the
conditions is that the exporting country must be free of many
diseases not in the U.S. If we are permitting foie gras, since
it is basically an uncooked product, I can assure you that we
are not allowing entry from France if they have Newcastle
disease. We know there is some Newcastle over in Europe,
though.
Mr. Hinchey. Right.
Can you just, not now but at some point, let me know how
this decision came about or what the status of it is? I would
appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
On November 14, 1997 we proposed a rule to amend
regulations to declare a number of countries free of exotic
Newcastle include France. We proposed these actions in response
to a request submitted in July 1997 by the European
Commission's Directorate General for Agriculture. We solicited
comments concerning our proposed rule for 60 days ending
January 13, 1998. We received one comment by that date. The
comment was from a veterinary association and fully supported
the proposed rule. Therefore, based on the rationale set forth
in the proposed rule, we adopted the provisions of the proposal
as a final rule without change effective December 23, 1998.
Mr. Hinchey. In the context of a decision to allow a
restricted product into the country, you do not take into
consideration the effect of that decision on domestic markets.
Is that within your jurisdiction?
Dr. Reed. We look at it from a disease prevention
standpoint. If product entry would cause undue risk for
American producers, that would be reason enough for us to deny
issuing an entry permit.
Mr. Hinchey. Yes, okay, I understand that. But you would
not take into consideration the fact that you are now lifting a
ban. Say, for example, as a result of the eradication of this
Exotic Newcastle disease, you are lifting that ban on Frech
foie gras, therefore, allowing this product to come into our
country. In such a case, you would not consider the effect of
the decision on existing markets here? That is not something
that you would examine, correct?
Dr. Reed. APHIS would look at the economic aspect of those
markets, but bases its decision to modify import restrictions
on assessment of risk of exotic disease entry.
Mr. Hinchey. Do you consult with the Commerce Department or
anyone who would be interested in the impact on domestic
markets when you make a decision like that or is that something
that is done in isolation?
Dr. Reed. Well, we usually solve the technical disease
issues first and then the trade issues get resolved by Foreign
Agricultural Service and USTR.
Mr. Hinchey. But you do not consult with them with regard
to your lifting a particular ban, say, for example?
Dr. Reed. We do talk to the Commerce Department about
certain policies that we put in place.
Mr. Hinchey. I know that, but on a routine basis is it your
policy to consult with the Commerce Department before you lift
a ban so that you are more aware of the impact that lifting the
ban will have on the domestic market for that particular
product?
Dr. Reed. In general we do consult with them.
Mr. Hinchey. In general you do but you do not have that as
a policy?
Dr. Reed. We do not have a written policy to consult with
them for agricultural trade. We do consult with USTR and other
parts of the USDA like the Foreign Agricultural Service.
Mr. Hinchey. Okay.
So, when you give me that information on foie gras and
Exotic Newcastle disease, would you tell me to what extent
Commerce was consulted before that ban was lifted?
Dr. Reed. Yes. We will get it for you.
[The information follows:]
We rarely talk to the Commerce Department about
agricultural trade promotion. On occasion, we may work with
them on things like the solid wood packaging rule which affects
trade in industrial products from China. We did not consult
with Commerce before we lifted the exotic Newcastle disease
restriction on France.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you.
rabies
The situation with rabies is one that is, I think, either
stable or becoming more serious. It depends on what part of the
country you are looking at. But I think in the Southeast,
generally, and running up the Atlantic Seaboard the problem of
rabies is a problem that is increasing.
Dr. Reed. Yes, it is becoming more serious.
Mr. Hinchey. I understand that your budget calls for a
decrease in oral vaccination for rabies, is that true?
Dr. Reed. Yes, there is a slight reduction for rabies work
in Wildlife Services operations.
Mr. Hinchey. How do we justify that?
Dr. Reed. We work with States to cost-share programs such
as rabies eradication. We agree that the Eastern Seaboard is
being plagued by increased incidents of rabies. It is moving
Westward as well. It is becoming a very alarming problem.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, I am just wondering since that is the
case, based upon your testimony and my knowledge, why we would
be reducing the amount of money that will be expended in the
next fiscal year to control this problem when it is a problem
that is increasing, and it is, obviously, a serious problem. It
is one that we want to keep under control.
I think that the budget cuts something like $1 million or
something of that nature, $1.-something.
Mr. Walsh. $1.8 million.
Mr. Hinchey. Thanks.
Dr. Reed. Congressman, it is a matter of priorities and we
have got compelling priorities in predator control and aerial
safety demands to protect our own people. We will continue to
provide technical assistance in the rabies effort.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, this is something that I suppose this
committee might want to take a look at because our experience
is that this is a growing problem and one that needs to be
addressed thoroughly and completely.
Thanks very much.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Kingston?
Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
wild horses
Dr. Reed, I noticed that on your APHIS study of horses, do
you do anything with wild horses?
Dr. Reed. We recently signed an agreement with the
Department of Interior to give them veterinary advice on wild
horses.
Mr. Kingston. Sometimes the Department of Interior and the
National Park Service gets undue pressure from the
environmental community about wild horses, particularly ones
that they want to get rid of in a National Park that as not
being indigenous to the area or something like that.
And some of the studies can actually be tainted. Are you in
a position to, if we request you to, to go in and look at horse
populations, horse health and so forth in a National Park?
Dr. Reed. Our new agreement with Interior allows us to
examine horse health, populations, and problems associated with
diseases. The West is becoming saturated with wild horses
causing their movement east.
Mr. Kingston. And would you feel that you would be a little
more scientifically neutral?
Dr. Reed. I feel I can be neutral. [Laughter]
Mr. Kingston. Because so often it is very frustrating that
horse politics seems to be, you know, almost void of science.
frogs
All right. The next question: You are aware or you have
heard about this worldwide amphibian disappearance problem. Are
you aware of that?
Dr. Reed. Of the frog numbers decreasing?
Mr. Kingston. Right.
Dr. Reed. Yes, I am aware of the situation.
Mr. Kingston. But I do not think it is just frogs, I think
it is all amphibians.
Dr. Reed. Yes, but frogs are a sentinel.
Mr. Kingston. Does that fit in at all to your wildlife? I
know you are studying gray foxes, you are studying raccoons,
you are studying coyotes, a lot of it has to do because they
are predators. But in the food chain it is possible that if
amphibians are disappearing it could be because of pesticides
or fertilizers, we have no idea of knowing, but does that fit
into APHIS' game plan since there could be an agricultural link
and the reason why I am interested in that.
I think you guys, if there is something between fertilizer
and pesticides and amphibian disappearance, that you need to be
involved in it now rather than have groups that are inherently
anti-agriculture involved in it.
Dr. Reed. We have wildlife biologists that look at the
bigger picture but only to a minor degree right now.
Mr. Kingston. What would be your involvement in the minor
degree?
Dr. Reed. When we study wildlife, whether it is endangered
species or predator controls, if one of their food sources
would be amphibians, for example, that would play into a method
of how we might control that problem.
Mr. Kingston. Would you follow-up with our office on that
and let me know?
Dr. Reed. Sure.
poultry processing
Mr. Kingston. Because it is something that I am interested
in and I am ultimately very concerned about, you know, what it
means in the world picture but also how it could impact
agriculture and so forth.
And, again, feel like you might be a little more
scientifically neutral on it.
All right. Now, poultry process and meat and poultry
inspections. As you know from the past we have a number of
poultry processors in Georgia and at any given time I could
just park my car in their parking lots, all of them, and walk
in and see the CEO or the Vice President and I can listen to
two hours about how they are scared to death of the inspectors
and what they can and cannot do to them and close them down and
so forth.
And I do not see it getting better from the times that you
and I have dealt with this in the past. What is your view on
it?
Dr. Reed. I am no longer associated with the Food Safety
and Inspection Service. FSIS is feeling a lot of pressure from
both producers and processors. I am sure there is nervousness
because they have instituted all these new approaches and there
is a great deal of uncertainly about how they will turn out.
I really would not want to comment further in my current
position.
Mr. Kingston. Anybody want to say anything?
Mr. Dunn. You should probably save that for Dr. Wotecki
when she is here.
Mr. Kingston. Okay.
I will. Let me ask you one other thing, though, Dr. Reed.
If they want to complain--their big gripe is if they complain
then vengeance will--they will pay the price down the road. If
you have any secret--well, you do not want to share it with
this group, I understand--but if there is any way they can
complain without their fingerprints being on it, let me know.
Dr. Reed. We will let you know.
Mr. Kingston. Okay.
Now, one other question. Having just talked to you about
frogs, screwworms, gypsy moths, Medflies, fruit flies, long-
horned beetles and now Jack Russells trained to find brown tree
snakes. Whoever is interested in these items, I hope that they
are proactive because as one committee member and I can
probably speak for all, we are sick and tired of this committee
taking hits in Reader's Digest and in all these little reports
where people apparently can get by without worrying about a
good, safe food supply, who laugh and ridicule all these
studies.
And I hope that you tell the various networks that you work
with, as I am doing it right now--if there are any little ears
in the audience--they had better get off their rear ends and
get proactive in explaining to the public why we need to be
doing these things.
Because frankly I think maybe it is time for us to explore
skipping funding some of these things. You know, you have had a
lot of success in the Medfly. Maybe we should just stop funding
it and see what the private sector does in a year and see what
happens.
Or the fruit fly. You know, frankly, my folks are not real
worried about the brown tree snake but they are going to laugh
when they find out that you are training, with our tax dollars,
14 Jack Russells to identify these snakes. What if they confuse
it with a king snake, you know? That is going to be a great
article.
And I do not know, Mr. Chairman, I think maybe we should
talk about skipping funding the gypsy moth every now and then
and just see what the private sector does, see if they pick up
the slack and if they do, good. Or boll weevil eradication
which is very important to Georgia. But I know also that the
State legislature is doing a lot, such as claiming credit for
all the eradication.
So, yes, I just think that, you know, here in the
agricultural family, Mr. Chairman, it might be time that we
consider stopping some of this funding for a while and just see
what happens.
Thank you.
Mr. Hinchey. I see a lot of brown tree snakes in our
future. [Laughter.]
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Walsh?
Mr. Walsh. I think we ought to begin with peanut pest
research. [Laughter.]
Mr. Kingston. Throw it on the table.
Mr. Walsh. That was facetious. I would not do anything to
harm peanuts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Rabies
First of all, let me begin by associating myself with the
remarks from my colleague from New York, Mr. Hinchey, regarding
rabies. As I understand it, the President's budget would
eliminate a little over $1.8 million in wildlife services under
APHIS and the most severe impact would fall upon rabies.
We have had to add money back each year the last two years
for rabies eradication. During the summer almost every week
there are reports on local television regarding rabies and
rabies warnings and so forth. So, it is a real concern and I
just wanted to register that.
Pesticide Residue
A lot of my farmers believe that later this year EPA will
move to cancel effective pesticides which the farmers consider
safe, which EPA apparently does not.
They think that the EPA will exaggerate their risks to
justify canceling these pesticides. And the loss of some of
these pesticides would raise the cost of production to many
farmers and make worse the current squeeze on farm income. Have
you discussed lately with EPA officials the need for science-
based decision making for the Food Quality Protection Act, Dr.
Dunn?
Mr. Dunn. What we do is provide information on pesticide
residue, through 10 different states. And what we try to
provide is unbiased information for employees at Ag Marketing
Service glean that information and they make it public. It is
information that EPA uses when they go to reauthorize a
pesticide. It is what the chemical companies also use when they
justify the need for that pesticide, that there is not an
excess amount of it.
What we try to do is remain impartial in that so that there
is a place where people can go and get genuine scientific
information.
Mr. Walsh. Can you assure us that USDA takes its role
serious enough to challenge EPA if they disagree with their
determinations on certain pesticides?
Mr. Dunn. Again, the determination on pesticide is an EPA
determination. What we do is simply supply them the
information. If they have concerns about the validity of our
information, we will discuss that with them.
Mr. Walsh. We have pretty much eliminated all chlorinated
hydrocarbon pesticides, right?
Mr. Dunn. Yes.
Mr. Walsh. And it looks like organophosphates are soon to
follow?
Dr. Reed. There are still a fair amount of organophosphates
that are used.
Mr. Walsh. Well, obviously, any time you mention pesticides
people cringe. They get concerned about them. But the fact is
that there are major economic impacts to farmers, especially
with special use pesticides that cannot be replaced. I know in
upstate New York along the lake plain there is a lot of organic
soils where they grow vegetables.
There are certain pesticides that work in organic soil
situations. In some cases, there is only one pesticide
available to deal with a certain pest. And if you eliminate
that pesticide, you eliminate that farmer's livelihood, because
they may be growing onions at that time of year and the only
way to treat a certain pest is with this chemical.
And I remember it happened several years ago but it was a
New York State DEC decision and we went to them and worked with
them. We said, there is huge economic impacts on this, can we
work through this? Because it was not a real strong
recommendation that they made. They said, well, this has got to
go because we believe such and such.
It would seem to me that, obviously, the public and the
public health have to be held in the highest regard. There is
no question about that. But a lot of these pesticides have been
licensed and used for many, many years in a safe and effective
way. And I would just urge you in your consultatory role with
EPA to protect that interest of the farmer, of the producer and
ultimately the consumer. I do not think they are in opposition
to each other but a balance has to be struck. And if you
eliminate a whole family of pesticides, you better have
something to replace them.
Could you explain how the pesticide data program works?
Pesticide Data Program
Mr. Figueroa. Gladly, Mr. Congressman. We have
approximately 10 States in the program that we have entered
into cooperative agreements for the State labs to do the
testing of the products that we develop a protocol for. Those
10 States represent a scientifically-defensible cross-section
of produce.
Produce is collected at either wholesale distribution
centers or supermarket warehouse distribution centers. Random
samples are selected. We test for pesticides that the EPA, FDA,
and we arrive at; a set of pesticides that are in need of being
tested for. The data is submitted to our central offices here
in Washington and compiled and we issue an annual report.
Mr. Walsh. What is the objective?
Mr. Figueroa. The objective of the PDP program is to have a
scientific, statistically-defensible sample of what is actually
on this basket of produce--in addition it includes milk and
grains and some other products--over time. So that anyone that
is interested in making a determination of what is actually in
the marketplace, we have that data available for them to make
that determination.
Mr. Walsh. How many States participate?
Mr. Figueroa. There are currently 10 States in the program.
Mr. Walsh. What do we need to do to get everyone involved?
Mr. Figueroa. I could not give you a dollar figure on that,
Congressman. I am willing to----
Mr. Walsh. Is it a question of funding?
Mr. Figueroa. The 10 States that are currently in the
program are representative of the national basket, if you will.
There is enough product tested in enough diverse areas that we
feel that it is a representative sample of what actually is
transpiring across the country.
Mr. Walsh. And the agricultural practices are equally
accepted in all those areas? In other words, what apple growers
use in Washington State is what apple growers use in New York
State?
Mr. Figueroa. We are testing when the product is already in
the marketplace. So that we are actually trying to get a sample
of what actually the consumer is going to consume. In fact,
when we do the testing of apples, for example, the apples are
washed because we are assuming that most consumers will wash
their apples. Then we do the grinding and the testing for the
pesticides.
Mr. Walsh. What role does this data play in EPA's pesticide
registration program?
Mr. Figueroa. The role that it plays is that they will have
direct data on exposure. They can use the pesticide data and
infer that an average consumer consumes X number of pounds of
apples. The data program provides how much pesticides are
available in that apple or on that apple, and they can then
develop the kind of exposure and risk assessment with regards
to the various commodities and pesticides.
Mr. Walsh. That was my next question. Is this data then put
to use in developing risk assessment?
Mr. Figueroa. Yes, it is. I might add, Congressman, that we
do random samples so that we capture both domestic product as
well as imported product.
Mr. Walsh. And you can identify both?
Mr. Figueroa. Yes, we can.
Mr. Walsh. As domestic or foreign?
Mr. Figueroa. Yes, sir.
farm animal identification and records program
Mr. Walsh. My last questions are for APHIS. Over the last
several years I have worked fairly closely with dairy and
livestock groups to provide funding for a farm animal
identification and records program, FAIR they call it. It is a
plan that is designed to lead to the creation of a unified
system of animal identification to serve the needs of animal
health and disease control, food safety, herd management, breed
production, genetic advancement.
How much progress is being made toward the creation of a
national livestock identification system, and when do you
envision such a system being fully operational?
Dr. Reed. We have a report--you may have the same report--
on the need to have a national system. A method of national
identification in the past has been brucellosis ear tags. With
less need for brucellosis vaccinations in many States, this is
no longer a viable identification.
All of the people involved in the livestock industry
support the need for livestock identification to isolate a pest
or disease problem, trace it back, and eliminate it rather than
using a less effective and efficient shotgun approach. We can
obtain animal health information based on a sound national ID
system.
We are getting closer, but we are not there yet. We are
exploring several ideas from livestock producers on the best
way to establish permanent identification.
Mr. Walsh. So there are sort of competing proposals on how
to approach this?
Dr. Reed. There are a variety of ideas on the table.
Everybody agrees that there is a compelling need for animal
identification, especially if we have a pest or disease
outbreak. We can then respond positively to questions from
other countries about a disease outbreak and know it is limited
to a certain area.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you. Thank you all.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur, we are going to go--this is only the start of
the second round. Let's keep it to about two questions.
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask our guests if
they wanted to stand up just for a two-minute break.
Mr. Skeen. I am afraid they might fall over, they have been
sitting there so long. We appreciate your endurance.
Ms. Kaptur. Are you doing all right out there?
Mr. Skeen. Ms. Kaptur.
strategic goals
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Under Secretary Dunn, I just wanted
to point out to you something I mentioned to the
representatives from Agricultural Research Service yesterday.
That is as I look at your strategic goals for marketing and
regulatory programs, what continues to surprise me in many of
the agency divisions' descriptions of their strategic goals
there are many priorities, consumers, workforces, customers.
But the word that is always missing is farmers.
You use--the term in here is producer, which is an
interesting word. But I hope that does not--sometimes words
really do tell us where people's minds are. So I just point
that, to me, glaring omission out to you, in hopes that as you
go back and talk about what it is you actually do, that farmers
might get some attention in the most high-level goals that you
establish as a part of USDA.
Mr. Dunn. Congresswoman, you have a good point in that we
sometimes fail to realize why we are here. It is for family
farmers throughout this Nation. That is one of the primary
reasons why we are here, why we have a Department of
Agriculture.
In our annual workplan, all three agencies have stressed
this year, because Secretary Glickman has asked us to, family
farmers. The Secretary had a commission on family farmers. In
each agencies' annual workplan, special segments explain how
they relate to family-size operators, and how we can assist in
keeping them in business. We need to rededicate ourselves to
helping family farmers every day.
Ms. Kaptur. Do you have any explanation of why even the
words are missing from your strategic goals?
That is a hard question. I really put you on the spot
there. You do not have to answer it. I made my point.
sanitary phytosanitary standards management
I wanted to ask Dr. Reed, if I might. We talked a lot about
the import of pests and bacterium into this country from other
nations. As you look at what we are accused of globally, is the
level of concern as great among our trading partners with what
is exported out of here? Or would you say that the level of
concern is greater based on what comes in here?
Dr. Reed. I would characterize the concern it as about the
same. People who receive our exports are very cautious, whether
it is pork going to Japan, or wheat going to Italy. There are a
variety of pest and disease concerns on both sides so we must
make sure that what we certify is what we deliver and vice
versa.
Ms. Kaptur. Is that generally true, that what we certify
is--what we deliver has been certified and that we do not
create the same kind of problems elsewhere, our exports, as
imports coming in here? I know the level of concern is the
same, but I am saying in fact with what happens with the
deliverables, how well do we present ourselves in the countries
in which we sell our product?
Dr. Reed. We do an excellent job because we know that if
they find a pest or disease problem, they are going to close
the export market for us.
Ms. Kaptur. Have we exported citrus canker anywhere?
Dr. Reed. I doubt it, because we have been containing
spread through regulatory actions and surveying for it in
commercial groves to prove free status before we export the
citrus.
karnal bunt
Ms. Kaptur. What about Karnal bunt?
Dr. Reed. We always have been worried about Karnal bunt. We
do not want Karnal bunt to spread to free areas.Countries that
receive our wheat are testing and examining for spores. That is why we
look so hard here, to ensure we deliver a product that is disease free.
If we do not, we are going to lose foreign markets for our agricultural
products.
Ms. Kaptur. On the Karnal bunt problem we had a couple
years ago, was that not the first time that had been detected
within our borders?
Mr. Dunn. Correct.
We had never had it before.
Dr. Reed. Arizona was the first time it was detected in the
U.S.
Ms. Kaptur. It was the first. That is what I thought. On
page 1417 of the budget that you submitted in the large budget
book there is a line item for Karnal bunt CCC $16.273 million
in 1998, and there is a carryover through that year, and there
are no additional--it says, available for 1999, $2.9 million.
Could you kind of summarize where we are on the Karnal bunt? I
thought we had closed that down? Are we still expending funds
to remediate that?
Dr. Reed. We still have survey and control programs for
Karnal bunt restricted areas in four States. We are proposing a
new regulation that we expect to be out this coming week to
inform producers of the remaining regulated areas.
Ms. Kaptur. From which nation did we trace that Karnal bunt
appearance in our country?
Mr. Dunn. We did not.
Dr. Reed. We do not have any specific information.
Ms. Kaptur. Was it windborne?
Dr. Reed. We believe it was from Mexico, but can not be
sure.
Mr. Skeen. New Mexico has a quarantine in the southwest
corner. The premise is that it came out of Mexico through
Arizona and into New Mexico.
Ms. Kaptur. As I asked on the beetle issue, could you
present us with the total amount that we have spent in trying
to eradicate and remediate against the Karnal bunt? Just
ballpark. If you could submit that for the record I would
appreciate it. And I take it that we have not discussed this
with the government of Mexico, have we? Maybe they are
remediating along their northern border. Do you know that,
Secretary Dunn?
Mr. Dunn. We have not discussed any funding with Mexico on
Karnal bunt. They have Karnal bunt in Mexico and have
established quarantines similar to ours. Since 1996, we
estimate spending about $67 million on Karnal bunt through this
year.
We distributed about $33 million of the $67 million
compensate to producers for losses that they have incurred
because of the existence of Karnal bunt. We still are incurring
costs to maintain quarantine areas. We then are able to assure
our trading partners that when they buy wheat from the United
States, we can provide a phytosanitary certificate that
indicates this wheat comes from an area free of Karnal bunt.
Ms. Kaptur. So our sales are--it has been all right?
Mr. Dunn. We have retained 98 percent of our sales that we
had before our find of Karnal bunt here in the United States.
Ms. Kaptur. I think that was due to your quick action as a
department also. I want to compliment you on what was done
there. That was really a terrible development.
Mr. Dunn. It was many fine men and women in APHIS, but
State Governments as well worked very, very closely with us on
that.
Ms. Kaptur. Very good. I am glad to hear that wheat sales
are okay. I had not been given that figure before so I
appreciate that for the record.
sanitary phytosanitary standards
On page five of Dr. Reed's testimony you talk about
American agricultural producers last year shipping over $55
billion worth of products to overseas markets. Do you also have
the number of--I know you are not the Economic Research
Service, but the amount of imports now coming in here and the
rate at which those are increasing, which affects your life
very much?
Dr. Reed. I can get the exact figures for you, but we still
maintain an overall balance of around the $10 billion to $15
billion mark of getting a product out more than we take it in.
[The information follows:]
In 1998, we imported about $37 billion worth of
agricultural products so we still maintain an overall balance
of around $17 billion. In 1996, the balance was more favorable,
about $28 billion, but a combination of weaker exports and
increased imports has reduced the balance today.
Ms. Kaptur. That is true. But of course, the rate of growth
is what is very significant in both those lines. I would just
commend that to your attention. And there seems to be some
aversion--I do not know why this is. In our country, we
always--in every single Administration document that comes up
here, we always talk about the export side of the equation. I
am all for that.
But it is just a glaring hole that we also do not report on
the imports. And in the area of agriculture, this is very, very
important. In some ways, it would support your arguments for
more funding to do some of what you need to do. But those
dollars are never reported. Those quantities are never
reported.
We follow them pretty regularly up here because of our
interest in our national interest. But it is always interesting
to me to look at testimony and to see what is in and what is
not in. So I just wanted to make that observation.
PACKER CONCENTRATION
I wanted to ask for further clarification, either verbally
or for the record, of Mr. Baker on how your budget addresses
the concerns regarding concentration that others on this
committee also talked about today, and is anything being done
to expand your investigatory ability in the budget submission?
Mr. Baker. The budget asked for additional funds to address
concentration; specifically concentration. We are sending
forward a bill to amend the Packers and Stockyards Act to cover
poultry under our administrative authority. We feel that we
need to have administrative authority for poultry. It is pretty
hard to have the responsibility and not the authority.
So we are asking for administrative authority that would
place poultry under the same authority that the other meats
have, and our budget is structured around that.
Ms. Kaptur. All right, I thank you for that.
Secretary Dunn.
Mr. Dunn. Congresswoman, I think we and the Nation owe this
committee a vote of thanks for the $2.5 million that was made
available last year as a one-time cost to restructure packers
and stockyards, to allow us to get more people out in the
countryside to actually do the business, to look at
concentration issues out there. We went from having 72 percent
of the people in the field to 80 percent of the people in the
field. We now have three regional offices set up, one
specializing in poultry, one specializing in swine, and one
specializing in beef and lamb. So that we are getting the
expertise where we need to have it.
We do have requests for looking at competition, and
requests for poultry. Again I reiterated what I said in my
opening statements, the single biggest factor that could help
us is having that money available for the electronic filing of
information so that we can get that information from packers.
It will not be a burden on them if we can do it electronically.
They can tally up at the end of the day and let us have that.
That would give us the type of information we need to be able
to tell the world what is happening out there.
Ms. Kaptur. You certainly have my support on that. You
reminded me, I wanted to compliment Mr. Baker. After he
traipsed through northwestern Ohio last year I asked his
assistance in another area, which was to try to get up on a web
site at USDA in the area of contract farming, helpful questions
for farmers. I do not know who did that. Congratulations. It is
a fine, fine, fine job.
Farmers can really benefit by reading through that, and you
give them other references. Where you cannot put a sample
contract, for example on there, you refer them to Iowa and
other places. But honestly, it was just excellent.
Mr. Baker. There was a need for that.
Ms. Kaptur. We thank you very much for that, and we hope we
save a few of them out there by just access to better
information.
DIRECT MARKETING
I wanted to ask Dr. Figueroa, I have been a long supporter
of farmers' markets, and the Secretary has been really helpful
on that. I wanted to ask you, if you could comment, how well
you work with the rural development part of your department,
particularly Under Secretary Long-Thompson, to find other ways,
economic ways for farmers to arrange their own production or
their own marketing of product, to find outlets to market.
I was listening to Mr. Baker when he was talking here about
people bidding so much on animals, $7 or $5 or $3 or whatever
it was and how the transparency was not necessarily there in
the marketplace for the farmer. But as I recall hearings in my
area people were saying, hey, we can produce a quality product,
but the auction barns and the market does not request quality;
does not respect our quality. That is what they were saying to
us.
Our problem is getting to the market. Our problem is how we
organize ourselves as groups of smaller producers to reach the
market. And when they have a very little narrow, eye of a
needle to pass through to get to the market, it is very
difficult for them.
So my question really goes, to what extent is the marketing
service looking at ways for farmers to bond together or to work
together, whether it is through a marketing co-op or through
the credit support for an expanding small slaughter facilities
that might be out there to permit them to actually bring
product? It is the same problem we have now if we are going to
buy extra product to try to relieve the surplus that is out
there in the low prices, who are we going to go to to buy those
hogs or buy those cattle, and how do we reach them as the
Government of the United States? Who is going to end up being
the seller?
So I am curious as to how much work you are really doing to
try to find ways to help lead these farmers to market in non-
traditional channels.
Mr. Figueroa. Congresswoman Kaptur, I will make available
to your office a copy of a direct marketing action plan, or a
strategic plan that was developed under the leadership of Under
Secretary Dunn and my staff in marketing and transportation.
You will see in the plan where it includes a number of
initiatives that we want to pursue to address not only farmers'
markets but other channels of direct marketing. It establishes
there a council, if you will, that includes individuals such as
you mentioned, Jill Long-Thompson.
So that there is more of a coordinated effort within the
USDA to try to develop more comprehensive approaches to
innovative solutions for direct marketing venues and
opportunities for farmers in this country.
Ms. Kaptur. I am very, very glad to hear that. To the
extent you can provide any of that information for the record I
would very much appreciate that.
Mr. Figueroa. We will do that.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 541-558 -- The official Committee Record contains additional
material here]
concentration
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Baker, I wanted to ask you, the Baltimore
Sun has been running a series on contract farming in our
country and I am wondering, you had talked about the additional
authority that you need and I am very sympathetic toward that.
Do you think--we know in the hog area and in the poultry area
people are heavily impacted by this. Do you see other areas
coming on stream, even though they may not be under your
authority, that are also going to be impacted in a like manner?
Mr. Baker. Not really. We have the authority in other areas
already. We do not have the authority in poultry. That is a
limiting factor.
Ms. Kaptur. But in fruits and vegetables, you do not see
the same----
Mr. Baker. I see grains and fruits and vegetables and all
being more of a concentrated effort, grown under contract. I
think we will see----
Ms. Kaptur. Dairy?
Mr. Baker. I doubt that the dairy will follow as fast as
the grains because the grain industry is shifting to the source
of the GMOs, and they are going to want to control that, the
GMO. So there is going to be more contract farming in the
grains. But it presents a problem when you are dealing with
contracts versus open market, and a tremendous problem in
regulating it when you have got a contract versus open market
bidders.
It is difficult for us, but what we are really interested
in right now is the poultry authority because we have it in the
livestock, cattle, pork, and sheep areas.
Ms. Kaptur. You reminded me of something. Ohio is now the
largest egg producer in the country because of Buckeye Foods.
It used to be called, I think, AgriGeneral, a company out of
Germany. What has happened in Ohio, and I am sure this is
happening in other places, Kroger, which is one of our largest
retail chain supermarkets, used to buy eggs and chicken from
many of our local producers. Now what has happened is, all
those locals have disappeared off the shelves and you are
seeing the very large, industrial firms, like Buckeye Foods,
supply the majority of eggs on the shelves in communities like
ours.
If you think about marketing, Dr. Figueroa, and some of the
other initiatives that you are involved in, I hope you will
give a serious talk to some of the retail chains and find a way
to help some of our smaller producers find their way to market.
Because truly, they are not on the shelves any more.
Mr. Dunn. Congresswoman, Secretary Glickman has asked us to
put together an agency-wide task force to look at the
concentration of various issues. And it is all the way from
transportation issues to concerns that Mr. Baker had
articulated.
What we are finding is that there are some things within
our jurisdiction and some things that are not within our
jurisdiction. For instance, on the Cargill proposed takeover
for Continental on the grain industry, that was one that maybe
FTC or Justice should have authority over. So we had spent a
great deal of time talking to those two agencies about what we
have spotted out there, to share the information with them.
When you get into the retail sector, this is an area which
FTC has jurisdiction over. So we can take it up through perhaps
the wholesale side, but when we get into the retail side then
we lose jurisdiction over that. But certainly, there are a lot
of concerns that we hear from many people about slotting fees,
et cetera, that they have to pay in order to shelf space. And
if you do not have the shelf space, you cannot sell.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. I thank you very much and I
appreciate your advice there. I also appreciate the indulgence
of my colleagues.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Boyd.
International Trade
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of quick
questions. First, I want to follow up on the line of
questioning and the comments by my friend from Ohio regarding
the import versus export balance, the trade balance, the
agricultural balance, which traditionally in this country has
been the major industry that has softened the deficit in our
trade balance. I recently read a summary of Secretary
Glickman's speech that he gave sometime in the last week where
he was predicting that that trade balance in agriculture would
be narrowing.
In other words, the surplus in that balance would be
getting smaller. Does anybody care to address that, maybe Mr.
Dunn or----
Mr. Dunn. That was, I believe, Congressman Boyd, the
Secretary's speech at the Outlook conference that took place a
week ago. And he talked about what has happened here as some of
our trade partners, primarily the Asian market we have seen a
tremendous collapse. Two years ago we had about $60 billion of
international trade. This year we may be down below $50 billion
in international trade, and that gives us a great deal of
concern.
There is also a weakening of some of our trade partners in
South America that will not be able to purchase some of the
commodities that we had sold to them in the past. That is of a
great deal of concern to the Secretary, and something that he
is asking us to take a hard look at and see if we can get back
on track.
Now I think there are some silver linings in there. I was
over to Asia not too long ago, the beginning of the year, and
what I was told was that our share of the market there has
grown, but the overall market has shrunk. The pie has not
gotten bigger, but our slice of the pie has gotten bigger. So
hopefully when that Asian economy comes back we will be in
place to be able to get back to where we were before.
But there is really a very--I do not want to say
pessimistic, but it is going to take us a while to get back to
where we were a short two years ago.
Mr. Boyd. Pessimistic, I agree with that. What we all fail
to talk about is our exports, that the export side--and this
is, I think, the point Ms. Kaptur was trying to make. The
imports continue to grow, our exports do not, and that creates
significant problems for our producers. Not only economic
problems, but problems for some of your activities too.
screwworm
Now Mr. Bonilla asked a question earlier that I really did
not catch the whole gist of. But as a person who maybe, besides
Chairman Skeen, the only person in this room that ever treated
screwworms in livestock. I want you to clarify: We are not at
any risk in our livestock industry of this pest now, are we?
Dr. Reed. We are always maintaining vigilance for it. We do
not have screwworm here. We had a find in the one goat that we
eliminated very quickly. We know there are screwworms in
Central America. We have a program there to eliminate the past
and keep moving its presence southward so it is not an
immediate threat for U.S. producers.
Mr. Dunn. Mr. Boyd, we are at risk. We have also had a
screwworm find in a dog brought back from Panama. We also had
an individual that had visited Brazil and had a screwworm
imbedded in his scalp. So we are at risk. We cannot afford to
drop our guard.
We need to finish the eradication program going to Panama
in the next two years to build a sterile rearing facility there
so that we can have the barrier at the isthmus of Panama. I
would hope that our friends on the subcontinent would also take
a look at what they can do to get that out of our hemisphere
altogether.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you. As the chairman I am sure can attest,
the screwworm an ugly, ugly pest. For everyone involved, since
we eradicated it--35 years ago, there has been all kinds of
pluses. Not only for the livestock industry, but for the
wildlife industry. We have a resurgence of wildlife population,
I know at least in the southeast and I am sure all over this
country, particularly among the deer population that has
created a whole new industry in itself. So this thing is
broader than just cows, and sheep, and goats, and hogs. I just
wanted to make sure that everybody understood that.
hog production
One final question, and maybe Mr. Baker you can answer
this, or either Dr. Figueroa. Regarding Hog production in this
country, are we quickly going to the same production model that
exists now in poultry where it is going to be integrated and
all controlled by--just a few large companies. They are all
produced for--and I do not want to name names, but we know who
they are, three or four large poultry guys. I mean, do we have
numbers? Do you all have statistics that show that we are
moving in that direction with our hog production also?
Mr. Baker. The statistics will show that it is getting to
be more contract growing of hogs in this country, yes. Contract
growing similar to what the poultry industry is doing where a
supplier furnishes you with a product, your management and
facilities are at risk.
Mr. Boyd. Has the Department taken any position about the
development of that concept and whether it is good, bad, or
indifferent? I know, again, it is a private sector matter, but
nevertheless, it is--I mean, this Government has a history of
maintaining or making sure that we maintain a strong economy.
Do you have any thoughts on that, or does the Department have
any thoughts on it or any position?
Mr. Dunn. I think, Mr. Boyd, that is of grave concern to us
of who is going to be out there and who is producing. A few
years ago people used to say, we keep this way we are going to
end up with only one farmer out there and one processor, and
they did it very jokingly. But if you look at the situation
with Murphy Farms, if there were 18 Murphy Farms out there,
they would cover that whole commodity, and that is all you
would need.
So it is something of a great deal of concern. It is
something the Secretary has asked us to look at, and it is one
of the reasons why we think we need the additional funding for
packers and stockyards so that we have the economists and the
statisticians there to enter into this next millennium with the
resources that we need to find out what is happening before it
happens.
Mr. Boyd. Mr. Chairman, you know the way it is in my area
of the country where we used to have small hog producers all
over the countryside, for many of them, that is their sole
income, and others, supplements their income. It just does not
exist any more. I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, and members
of the panel, that I am somewhat concerned about that trend in
our pork production.
Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Will the gentleman yield? I did not quite
understand your point, Secretary Dunn, on the 18 to one ratio.
Could you clarify that?
Mr. Dunn. What I said is that if there were 18 Murphy Farms
out there, they would be able to supply our entire need for
that commodity. When we used to have 2 million farmers out
there--in my part of the country in Iowa where we used to have
what they called the mortgage burners, the hog operations out
there. What used to be a large operation, any more is a small
operation. And what used to be considered a mega-operation is
now a family-size farm. So there is a definite trend.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know it is
getting late and I appreciate your indulgence. There is an
interesting theme that is developing here and I want to comment
on it and ask some questions. Jim Walsh started it and Ms.
Kaptur picked up on it.
export promotion
It seems what we are doing in America is providing a lot of
resources to regulate agriculture in this country, to regulate
the management and restriction of herbicides and pesticides, to
inspect etc. Yet we allow countries to import goods that do not
face the level of regulation that domestic goods face. If we
keep going this way we are going to end up not growing any food
in this country, we are just going to import it all, because
the cost of doing business is going to be too great in America.
One of the things that I am really concerned about is
health and safety. We all support the idea that we ought to be
better informed and use smarter and safer products and support
the registration process. But at the same time, we give the
determining authority to another agency, EPA. I have often
found that they do not have any deadlines. They can do more and
more studies while avoiding the need to come to a conclusion.
When I was in California what we did is we put limits of
time, saying that if you did not do something within a
reasonable amount of time--then it was deemed approved. And
that really started moving things.
I think that your department needs to come back and suggest
to this committee that we may need to have some of those
timelines in the extra-regulatory agencies whodo not really
have to make it a high priority within their budget process to get
these things done.
In order for us to get our product abroad and market our
product, obviously we have got to sell--we only have 3 percent
of the world population and we grow most of the world's food.
We cannot consume it all. We have got to export.
We lend money through the export promotion to do
advertising. But we need more than that. We need technical
hustlers. Ms. Kaptur talked about the idea of getting farmers
more access to market information. I think that we could do
that on computer.
I know the California World Trade Commission has given
California farmers essentially a laptop software marketing
strategy. So if you grow strawberries and you want to wake up
in the morning and say, who in the world wants to buy my
strawberries today, you can look up every country in the world
that buys them and what the protocol is for getting them to
market. And then find what the price is and make your decision
of whether you want to sell domestically or to foreign buyers
that day. We need to do more of that in America to give our
farmers access.
sanitary phyto sanitary standards
What proportion of the APHIS budget is allocated to working
on projects where U.S. industries are asking APHIS for
assisting in working with foreign governments to open up new
export markets?
Dr. Reed. I will have to get those numbers for you,
Congressman.
[The information follows:]
Almost 4 percent or about $16 million is spend directly on
export--related SPS issues. This includes issuance and review
of export certifications, bilateral negotiations with trading
partners, risk assessments, and participation in international
trade and SPS standard-setting organizations.
Mr. Farr. How do you allocate staff resources to this?
Dr. Reed. On the import sides, we have a number of
countries that petition to ship us products. Of course, we will
examine these products to determine their eligiblity for
import. There is some staff time that goes to determine pest or
disease risks.
On export, we do the same thing. We work on behalf of a
commodity producer or an exporter. When there is an interest in
a foreign market and there is a technical issue, a sanitary or
phytosanitary issue, then APHIS ensures that we can meet SPS
needs of the importing country. So there is effort both ways.
It depends on the product to be exported. APHIS does not
promote exporting products that people do not have an interest
in exporting. By the same token, when a producer asks for help,
we assist in resolving any SPS issues.
Mr. Dunn. Mr. Farr, In the past, a GAO report indicated
that we do not do enough coordination of sanitary,
phytosanitary issues between the Department of Agriculture,
USTR, and other entities.
So we met with USTR and developed thresholds to determine
our involvement in sanitary and phytosanitary issues. USTR
published a list of these thresholds about two or three months
ago. The whole world knows our involvement regarding SPS
managment issues.
But one of the primary drivers is that is the industries'
requests.
Mr. Farr. How many export projects are currently in the
pipeline?
Dr. Reed. There are about 56.
Mr. Farr. Is the time allocated to assisting U.S.
industries more or less or equal to the amount of time that is
devoted to assisting foreign governments who wish to import, or
wish to export to us?
Dr. Reed. I do not have a good answer for you on that one.
But what I would submit would be that if there is producer
interest, whether it takes a little time or a lot of time, we
are going to support that producer request to move product into
a foreign market.
[Subsequent to the hearing, the agency provided the
following:]
I estimate the time we spend on export work is four times
greater than the time we spent on import work.
Mr. Farr. What do you do when you have got to determine
where to put these resources? Do you put resources into making
sure that we are not losing export markets? For example, when
there has been an infestation of flies or other pests
identified in the United States, how do you calculate the
resources assigned to work with foreign governments so that
they understand the nature of the problem in the U.S. and do
not overreact to such a pest problem?
Dr. Reed. We have two mechanisms. If we have a reportable
pest, we must notify the country receiving our product about
the pest discovery. And, many times, we can also tell them that
we have quarantined and delimited an area and that only certain
products will come out of that area so we can keep that expert
market open.
Mr. Farr. Do you dedicate staff to making sure that market
share is not lost, that a niche is not lost?
Dr. Reed. Oh, yes. We will get you the numbers on that.
[The Information follows:]
We have over 200 staff years devoted to risk assessments
and bilateral negotiations with trading partners to maintain
markets.
Mr. Dunn. Mr. Farr, the Karnal bunt that we talked about
earlier is probably a good example of maintaining wheat
exports.
Mr. Farr. That is a good example because it is a huge
export market.
Mr. Dunn. It is a huge export market. In the case of Karnal
bunt APHIS' International Services employees stationed
worldwide began talking to scientists and technicians in other
countries so that they understood our situation. Using our
protocols, we established quarantines and conducted a
nationwide survey to ensure that bunted kernels did not get
into shipments that went outside the United States.
Then we also used our Foreign Agricultural Service
employees located in all of the embassies to ensure that the
ambassadors and their staffs were well aware of what actions we
were taking, so that it was a dual approach. We went to the
scientists, we went to the technicians, and then we went to the
policy people as well.
Mr. Skeen. Could I ask the gentleman to----
Mr. Farr. Yes, this is concluding.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you.
Mr. Farr. Wheat is huge. I understand APHIS sent a letter
to the minister of agriculture in Japan almost a year ago
concerning the phytosanitary standards for lettuce and
requesting changes to the restrictions. Has there been any
response to your letter?
That is a year ago. This is why I am asking about
dedication of personnel to follow through with these things.
Dr. Reed. We are continuing to follow that issue closely.
We are engaging in bilateral talks on that commodity.
Mr. Farr. It takes over a year on one commodity just to
answer some questions?
Dr. Reed. Sometimes it takes many years.
Mr. Farr. Are you going to more forward on any action in
the WTO if they do not respond?
Mr. Dunn. That is one of those decisions above our pay
grade, unfortunately. I was over in Japan early last spring and
we talked about this very issue; this as well as tomatoes,
various varieties of tomatoes. At that time, the Japanese did
not have enough time, enough personnel to work on lettuce
because they were fighting us on varietal issues on apples that
were going in there.
We are now seeing Japan going back to the table and sitting
down and talking to us about the phytosanitary issues on
scientist to scientist, technician to technician basis. But
again, they lack resources, both human and fiscal, the same as
we might.
Mr. Farr. Yes or no answer. Do you support origin labeling?
Mr. Dunn. Me personally?
Mr. Farr. The Secretary.
Mr. Dunn. There are a number of issues involved with that.
If it comes down to a consumer's right to know, I personally
would support it.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
karnal bunt
Mr. Skeen. Thank the gentleman. I think that it is time to
wrap this up and I would just like to ask one question. Has the
Karnal bunt moratorium on planting wheat in the quarantine
zones in southern New Mexico been lifted as of March 1, Dr.
Reed?
Dr. Reed. It is not going to be entirely lifted. We are
going to have to go field by field.
Mr. Skeen. I understand that you are going to do the
inspection. Thank you very much.
I want to thank all of you for your responses, and thank
you for the time and all of the effort. If you want to worry
about the flies we used to have so much trouble with, you will
never eat rice pudding again. [Laughter.]
With that wonderful thought, I will leave it to you. Thank
you all very much. We have questions we would like to give you,
Mr. Dewhurst, to respond for the record. Thank all of you very
much.
[The following questions were submitted to be answered for
the record:]
[Pages 567-987 -- The official Committee Record contains additional
material here]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Baker, J. R...................................................... 359
Dewhurst, S. B................................................... 359
Dubey, A. M...................................................... 1
Dunn, M. V....................................................... 359
Figueroa, Enrique................................................ 359
Kaplan, Dennis................................................... 1
Lyons, J. R...................................................... 1
Reed, C. A....................................................... 359
Reed, P. S....................................................... 1
Sells, D. R...................................................... 1
I N D E X
---------- 5--
--------
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Page
Additional Assistance............................................ 45
Administrative Service Estimates................................. 160
Administrative Tasks Minimization................................ 142
Adopted Ordinances of Best-Use Practices......................... 55
Ag Drainage Wells:
Capping of Ag Drainage Well in Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP) 69
CWAP and Ag Drainage Wells................................... 69
Drainage Wells in Iowa......................................67, 183
Agency Priorities................................................ 70
Aging Watershed Structures.................................44, 173, 189
Air Quality Compliance........................................... 157
American Heritage Rivers Initiative:
Funding for FY 1998 and FY 1999.............................. 121
Initiative................................................... 59
Animal Agriculture and Production Concern........................ 122
Animal Feeding Operations:
Economic Analysis............................................ 49
EPA Budget Request........................................... 62
Listening Sessions........................................... 50
Release of Strategy.......................................... 57
Responsibilities............................................. 69
Status of Joint Strategy (with EPA)........................180, 189
Strategy..................................................... 48
Technical Assistance......................................... 135
Workload..................................................... 45
Biographies:
Undersecretary Jim Lyons..................................... 38
Chief Pearlie S. Reed........................................ 39
Associate Chief Danny D. Sells............................... 40
Backyard Conservation Program...................................44, 139
Buffer Strips Initiative:
Enrollments.................................................. 57
Carbon Sequestration...........................................175, 184
Common Computing Environment Purchases........................... 116
Competitive Partnership Grants................................... 131
Concern for the Family Farm versus Conservation.................. 176
Conservation Compliance and Conservation Operations.............. 87
Conservation Farm Option (CFO) Program:
Funding...................................................... 116
Participating States......................................... 111
Conservation on Private Lands.................................... 167
Conservation Philosophy of Mr. Reed.............................. 41
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP).................. 57
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP):
Additional Funding........................................... 164
Caps......................................................... 164
CCC Reimbursement............................................ 125
Cover crops.................................................. 78
Demand....................................................... 164
Enrollment.................................................135, 164
Environmental Benefits Index (EBI)........................... 124
Technical Assistance......................................... 134
Debt For Nature.................................................. 70
Demonstration Project Language................................... 142
Digital Soils Database........................................... 118
Earth Team Volunteers............................................ 111
Emergency Watershed Protection Program (EWP):
Commitments versus Obligations............................... 157
Flood Plain Easements........................................ 157
History of Appropriations.................................... 100
Unobligated Emergency Supplemental Balances.................. 153
Endangered Species............................................... 136
Environmental Monitoring and Research............................ 131
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP):
Allocations for FY 1998...................................... 123
Allocations for FY 1999...................................... 112
Change in allocation process (FY 1998 versus FY 1999)........ 122
Eligible Acreage versus allocation........................... 123
Funding of the Colorado River Salinity Control Program....... 58
Funding Priority Areas in FY 1998............................ 120
Funding Needs for Clear Water Action Plan (CWAP)............. 58
Legitimacy of EQIP Contracts................................. 181
Listening Sessions.....................................74, 165, 178
Priority Areas............................................... 182
Program Level for FY 2000.................................... 112
Erosion Rates.................................................... 132
Explanatory Notes................................................ 192
Farmland Protection Program (FPP):
Acres Propsoed for Conversion................................ 163
Demand....................................................... 160
Efforts...................................................... 55
Loss of Prime Farmland....................................... 133
Requests..................................................... 56
Federal and Non-Federal Obligations Sources...................... 103
Field Conservationists Needs..................................... 175
Fiscal Year 2000 Budget History Table...........................47, 110
Fiscal Year 2000 Compliance...................................... 117
Flood Plain Easements............................................ 97
Forestry Incentives Program (FIP):
FIP and SIP Appropriations Comparison........................ 111
FIP Allocation Release in Florida............................ 66
Supplemental Funding Allocation for FY 1999.................. 138
Global Climate Change:
Economic Analysis............................................ 54
Impact....................................................... 50
Kyoto Protocol............................................... 51
Kyoto Global Climate Change Treaty Economic Impact Assessment 181
Research..................................................... 162
Grazing Lands:
Earmark Allocations for FY 1999.............................. 121
Funding for FY 1998 and FY 1999.............................. 140
Grazing Lands Assistance..................................... 108
Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI)................. 108
Grazing Lands Specialists.................................... 108
National Grazing Lands Technology Institute.................. 109
Training In Grazing Science.................................. 109
Hydrologic Unit Areas..........................................105, 158
Kyoto Protocol................................................... 51
Improving Accountability of NRCS Funds........................... 159
International Activities.......................................107, 116
Land Legacy Initiative........................................... 73
Learning More About NRCS......................................... 79
Loss of Prime Farmland........................................... 133
Loss of Arable Lands............................................. 42
Mitigation Banking............................................... 85
National Resources Inventory..................................... 116
National Soil Information System................................. 91
New Funding Areas................................................ 63
Non-Federal Watershed and Rangeland Coordinators................. 103
Non-Profit and Community Action Cooperatives..................... 117
Northwest Salmon Recovery Initiative............................. 120
Object Class Breakouts........................................... 144
Opening Remarks:
Undersecretary Lyons......................................... 1
Mr. Reed..................................................... 7
Passenger Motor Vehicles......................................... 125
Plant Materials Centers:
Alderson, West Virginia's Plant Materials Center............. 96
Funding...................................................... 119
New Plant Releases........................................... 93
Operating Costs.............................................. 93
Royalty Collections for New Plant Releases................... 96
Private Lands Enrolled in Conservation Programs.................. 138
Program Evaluation Studies....................................... 97
Questions Submitted for the Record:
Chairman Skeen............................................... 85
Ms. Kaptur................................................... 162
Mr. Walsh.................................................... 164
Mr. Bonilla.................................................. 178
Mr. Latham................................................... 183
Ms. DeLauro.................................................. 184
Reimbursements:
Non-Federal Reimbursements................................... 126
Other Federal Reimbursements................................. 125
Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Program:
Authorizations for FY 1999................................... 120
Federal and Non-Federal Assistance........................... 102
Outstanding RC&D Loan Borrowers.............................. 104
Projects Planned, Adopted, and Completed..................... 103
Regional Offices................................................. 61
Rural Abandoned Mine Program..................................... 158
Section 11 Cap:
Impact on CRP................................................ 177
Section 11 Cap..............................................72, 134
Soil Surveys:
Digitizing and Orthophotography Cost Contributions........... 91
Digital Soils Database....................................... 118
National Soil Information system............................. 91
Funding and Staffing Levels.................................. 118
Reimbursements............................................... 91
Soil Surveys Published....................................... 91
Staffing:
Conservation Technical Assistance Staffing Levels............ 113
Headquarter versus Field..................................... 88
Proposed Reductions.......................................... 159
Reductions...................................................41, 88
Reductions in the Field...................................... 48
Staff Year Summary (FY 1995-1999)............................ 111
State and Local Contributions.................................... 90
Technical Service Centers and Regional Offices and Institutes.... 89
Technical Assistance:
For All Conservation Programs................................ 90
For Conservation Reserve Program............................. 134
For Wetlands Reserve Program................................. 134
Technical Assistance versus Enforcement...................... 64
Total Cost and Accountability System............................. 142
Transfer of Watershed Accounts to Conservation Operations........ 133
Unified Watershed Assessment..................................... 126
Urban Conservation............................................... 141
Urban Resources Partnership (URP) Program:
Cumulative Support through 1998.............................. 114
Funding for FY 1998 and FY 1999.............................. 120
Update of Activities......................................... 113
Watershed Planning Activities:
Program Evaluations.......................................... 97
State and Local Funding...................................... 96
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO):
Description.................................................. 98
Funding Proposal versus Aging Watershed Structures........... 141
Recreational Projects........................................ 100
Small Watershed Projects..................................... 101
Status of Authorized P.L. 534 Projects....................... 97
Watershed Project Status Review.............................. 102
Watershed Restoration Strategies................................. 131
Water Quality Incentives:
Demonstration Projects....................................... 106
Funding for the Presidential Water Quality Initiative........ 105
Hydrologic Unit Areas......................................105, 158
Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico................................ 107
Regional Project Allocations................................. 105
Regional Projects............................................ 106
Water Quality Incentives..................................... 104
Wetland Delineations............................................. 86
Wetland Determinations...............................118, 140, 173, 189
Wetland Policy.............................................78, 167, 184
Wetlands Reserve Program:
Additional Funding........................................... 164
Applications and Enrollments................................85, 141
Current Unobligated Balance.................................. 87
Enrollment Caps.............................................. 164
Enrollmemt Status............................................ 164
Demand....................................................... 164
Salary and Total Costs....................................... 86
Staff Years and Costs for FY 1998............................ 86
Technical Assistance.......................................134, 159
Technical Assistance Reimbursements.......................... 87
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program:
Funding Allocations.......................................... 114
Geographic Breakdowns........................................ 115
Update....................................................... 114
Workload:
Analysis..................................................... 73
Increasing Workload.......................................... 139
Written Testimony:
Statement of James R. Lyons.................................. 8
Statement of Pearlie S. Reed................................. 33
Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Opening Statement, Under Secretary, Michael V. Dunn.............. 359
Biography, Under Secretary, Michael V. Dunn...................... 450
FY 2000 Budget Request........................................... 361
Strategic Goals.................................................. 535
Written Statement, Under Secretary, Michael V. Dunn.............. 364
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection:
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection..........514, 653, 659, 666, 667
Fee Schedule by Activity..................................... 591
Funding and FTE's by Airport................................. 589
Number of Staff Years Funded................................. 588
Animal Care:
Animal Care, general.......................................569, 573
Animal Welfare.............................................520, 567
Doris Day Animal League Petition...........................653, 664
Breeders of Cats and Dogs, Regulatory Change(s).............. 673
Stolen Dogs.................................................. 569
Animal Health Emergency Management............................... 663
Animal Import Centers..........................................627, 655
Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement.................645, 662
Aquaculture...................................................... 611
Argentine Citrus...............................................518, 668
Asian gypsy moth/European gypsy moth............................. 613
Asian Longhorned Beetle.........................470, 526, 611, 663, 678
Australian Cattle................................................ 509
Automated Cargo System........................................... 592
Automatic Targeting System....................................... 592
Aviation Safety................................................454, 675
Biography, Administrator, Craig A. Reed.......................... 452
Biotechnology:
International Harmonization.................................. 666
Staffing and Funding......................................... 632
User Fees.................................................... 665
Bioterrorism..................................................... 678
Boll Weevil..........................................511, 583, 654, 664
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy--BSE............................ 612
Brown Citrus Aphid............................................... 642
Brown Tree Snake................................................. 610
Brucellosis..........................................513, 574, 575, 664
Brucellosis Quarantine Facility.................................. 655
Budget Request, History.......................................... 636
Buildings and Facilities......................................... 603
Carryover Funds.................................................. 651
Cattle Tick Program............................................509, 594
Centers of Excellence............................................ 633
Citrus Canker..................................................515, 612
Contingency Fund...............................................626, 653
Country-of-Origin Marking Requirements........................... 509
Detector Dog Training............................................ 667
Doris Day Animal League Petition...............................653, 664
Electronic Poultry Certification................................. 647
Emergency Funding..............................................611, 616
Equine Infectious Anemia Program................................. 643
Exotic Newcastle Disease......................................... 527
Explanatory Notes................................................ 855
Farm Animal Identification and Records Program................... 534
Federal/Non-Federal Dollars...................................... 623
Fish-eating Birds................................................ 518
Foot-and-Mouth Disease........................................... 576
Foreign Pests.................................................... 513
Frogs............................................................ 530
Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection................................ 660
General Accounting Office Reports/OIG Audits..................... 637
Genetically Engineered Products.................................. 665
Golden Nematode.................................................. 647
Gypsy Moth....................................................... 613
Harry S Truman Animal Import Center.............................. 669
Horse Protection...............................................520, 665
Horse Study, NAHMS............................................... 603
Import/Export..................................................527, 661
Import/Export Veterinary Diagnostic User Fees.................... 629
Imported Fire Ant..............................................608, 652
Infestation, definition.......................................... 669
Integrated Systems Acquisition Project (ISAP).................... 586
International Cooperation in Animal Biologics.................... 649
International Cooperative Administrative Support System.......... 631
International Programs.........................................635, 645
International Trade.............................................. 560
Invasive Alien Species........................................... 524
Johne's Disease.................................................. 662
Karnal Bunt................................455, 536, 565, 601, 613, 679
Kudzu............................................................ 654
Livestock Protection Collar...................................... 600
``Living with Wildlife'' Campaign................................ 598
Mediterranean Fruit Fly........................................577, 614
Mexican Fruit Fly................................................ 614
National Animal Health Monitoring System......................... 602
National Center for Import/Export................................ 655
National Monitoring and Residue Analysis Laboratory.............. 645
National Germplasm Quarantine Center............................. 606
National Poultry Improvement Plan................................ 647
National Wildlife Research Center................................ 605
Noxious Weeds..................................................581, 583
Object Class Data................................................ 660
Oriental Fruit Fly............................................... 614
Overseas Locations............................................... 621
Overtime, AQI Program............................................ 659
Pine Shoot Beetle..............................................644, 647
Pink Bollworm.................................................... 625
Pink Hibiscus Mealybug.........................................614, 655
Plant Methods Development Activities............................. 632
Plum Island Animal Disease Center Modernization................606, 654
Poultry Inspections.............................................. 530
Predator Control Program......................................... 656
Pseudorabies..............................................578, 659, 677
Quarantine Fumigations.........................................670, 682
Questions Submitted for the Record:
Chairman Skeen............................................... 567
Mr. Kingston................................................. 682
Mr. Bonilla.................................................. 675
Mr. Latham................................................... 677
Mr. Pastor................................................... 679
Rabies...............................................529, 532, 644, 675
Regulatory Enforcement and Animal Care........................... 571
Saltcedar Tree.................................................651, 669
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards Management......536, 537, 563, 661
Scrapie.......................................................... 655
Screwworm Eradication................................510, 561, 576, 658
Shared Administrative Costs...................................... 660
Silverleaf Whitefly............................................628, 654
Stolen Dogs...................................................... 569
``Swim with the Dolphins'' Program............................... 669
Swine Brucellosis................................................ 575
TCK Smut......................................................... 515
Texas Oral Rabies Vaccination Program............................ 675
Transportation of Animals Through Airports....................... 659
Trap Testing..................................................... 657
Trichinae Pilot Certification Project............................ 643
Tropical Bont Tick............................................... 620
Tuberculosis, Bovine............................................. 585
Tuberculosis in Cervidae......................................... 615
User Fees:
AQI User Fees..............................................591, 666
Import-Export User Fees...................................... 629
Veterinary Diagnostics User Fees............................. 629
Vesicular Stomatitis............................................. 615
Veterinary Diagnostics User Fees................................. 629
Wild Horses...................................................... 529
Wildlife Services:
General...............................................454, 509, 594
Aerial Safety..............................................454, 675
Aircraft Operations.......................................... 652
Budget Proposal.............................................. 671
Employee and Property Safety................................. 670
Methods Development........................................518, 666
Texas Oral Rabies Vaccination Program........................ 675
Witchweed........................................................ 581
Wolf Damage Control.............................................. 615
Written Statement, Administrator, Craig A. Reed.................. 402
Agricultural Marketing Service
Administrative Expenses Limitation............................... 711
ADP Purchases.................................................... 715
AMS Homepage..................................................... 716
Biography, Administrator, Enrique Figueroa....................... 451
Business Process Reengineering................................... 692
Certifying Agriculture Processing Equipment...................... 752
Class I Pricing.................................................. 716
Direct Marketing:
Farmers Direct Marketing Action Plan......................... 541
Program Information.......................................... 539
Export Promotion................................................. 562
Explanatory Notes................................................ 786
Federal Seed Act................................................. 698
Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program:
Payments to States and Possessions--1998 Grants............699, 719
Payments to States and Possessions--1998 Locations........... 701
Food Quality Protection Act Implementation....................... 744
Free Trade with Mexico........................................... 698
Grading:
Cotton and Tobacco Reimbursement............................. 715
Grading Activity Employee Totals............................. 691
Grading Fees................................................. 691
Qualified Through Verification Program....................... 720
International Trade Price and Volume Reporting................... 741
Marketing News:
Budget Request............................................... 684
Mandatory Price Reporting.................................... 523
Market Transparency.......................................... 757
Reporting on Organically-Grown Fruits & Vegetables........... 734
Reports Status............................................... 692
Object Class--Market News.................................... 734
Object Class--Organically-Grown Fruits and Vegetables........ 735
Marketing Agreements and Orders:
Federal Milk Marketing Order Reform Final Decision........... 459
Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact........................... 716
Peanut Non-Signer Program.................................... 714
Pistachio Marketing Order.................................... 716
Marketing Services Object Class 2500 Breakout.................... 715
Microbiological Data Program:
Budget Request.............................................686, 755
Object Classes............................................... 750
National Laboratory Accreditation Program........................ 694
Organic Certification:
Budget Request Breakout...................................... 689
Definition................................................... 735
Final Rule Publication....................................... 684
Implementation............................................... 455
National Organic Standards Final Rule........................ 740
Nutrient Management Program.................................. 736
Program Information--Spending and Staff Years................ 718
Program Table................................................ 687
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act.......................... 709
Pesticide Data Program:
Adherence to Committee Guidelines............................ 749
Alar Residues................................................ 517
Budget Request for PDP....................................... 712
Consumer's Union Report...................................... 741
Coordination with EPA........................................ 759
Crop Protection Products..................................... 749
EPA Coordination............................................. 753
Federal Funds................................................ 718
Funding Table................................................ 753
Integrated Pest Management and Related Programs.............. 743
Microbiological Initiative................................... 686
Participating States--Pesticide Data Program................. 533
Program Information.......................................... 717
Rapid Response............................................... 741
Registration and EPA......................................... 712
Reimbursement to GIPSA....................................... 718
USDA and EPA Relationship.................................... 750
Requirements of Food Quality Protection Act................532, 759
Pesticide Recordkeeping Program.................................. 730
Pesticide Use--Spending.......................................... 742
Plant Variety Protection Act..................................... 716
President's Year 2000 Working Group.............................. 740
Questions Submitted for the Record:
Chairman Skeen............................................... 567
Mr. Latham................................................... 757
Reports:
OIG Report Findings.......................................... 722
Status of OIG and GAO Reports................................ 729
Research and Promotion:
Assistance to Pork Producers................................. 736
Funding Received from FAS.................................... 697
New Programs................................................. 732
OGC Legal Services........................................... 696
Mandated Agriculture Promotion Programs...................... 758
Referendum Schedule.......................................... 698
Research Cooperative Agreements.................................. 732
Screwworm Facility--Mexico....................................... 472
Section 32:
Commodity Purchases.......................................... 705
Surplus Removal.............................................. 708
Disaster Relief.............................................. 703
Emergency Surplus Removal.................................... 703
Export Purchases............................................. 704
Table--Financing............................................. 708
Standardization Program.......................................... 689
Tobacco Funding.................................................. 690
Transportation Services:
Missouri River Project....................................... 733
Regulatory Actions........................................... 713
River Infrastructure......................................... 758
Surface Transportation Board................................. 730
Vertical Integration............................................. 757
Wholesale Market Development:
Budget Request--Small Farms.................................. 751
Projects Status.............................................. 694
Written Statement, Administrator, Enrique Figueroa............... 386
Y2K Emergency Funding............................................ 732
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
ADP Hardware/Software Purchases.................................. 776
Aflatoxin Inspections............................................ 764
Anticompetitive Practices........................................ 780
Auction Market Failures.......................................... 766
Biography of Administrator, James R. Baker....................... 453
Commodity Contracting Guidelines................................. 782
Complaints From Livestock Producers.............................. 761
Concentration.............................................472, 559, 757
Contract Poultry Growers......................................... 521
Custodial Account Compliance Audits.............................. 769
Dealer Failures.................................................. 772
Dealer/Order Buyer Financial Failures............................ 765
Economic/Statistical Analysis--Investigations.................... 771
Emerging Grain Testing Needs Increase............................ 777
Explanatory Notes................................................ 951
Exported Grain Complaints........................................ 763
Four Firm Concentration.......................................... 765
Funds Spent on Competition, Fair Trade Practices, Financial
Protection..................................................... 769
FY 2000 Budget Request........................................... 770
Generic Sample-Lot Inspection Certificate........................ 769
GIPSA Electronic Network......................................... 775
Grain Dust Explosions............................................ 763
Grain Facilities................................................. 761
Grain Inspected and/or Weighed................................... 762
Grain Transportation Issue....................................... 783
Heavy Metal Testing.............................................. 764
Hot Production................................................... 561
International Monitoring Program................................. 773
Livestock Procurement Investigations............................. 774
Livestock Slaughter.............................................. 767
New User Fees.................................................... 781
Oat Standards.................................................... 772
Other Services................................................... 770
Packers & Stockyards Reorganization............................771, 781
Packer Concentration...........................................538, 784
Packer Competition and Industry Structure........................ 779
Pesticide Data Program........................................... 773
Poultry Compliance............................................... 780
Poultry Compliance Complaints.................................... 764
Poultry Compliance Investigations................................ 780
Poultry Concentration............................................ 522
Poultry Grower Complaints........................................ 780
Proposed Regulations--Grower Contracts........................... 774
Proposed Rule--Feed Weighing..................................... 782
Questions Submitted for the Record:
Chairman Skeen............................................... 761
Mr. Latham................................................... 784
Select Elements in Grains772.....................................
Slaughters/Processors Subject to the P & S Act................... 768
Specific Grain Variety Testing................................... 778
Streamlining..................................................... 779
Unrecovered Losses............................................... 772
U.S. Standards for Rye........................................... 777
Vertical Integration............................................. 784
Violation Cases--Grain........................................... 773
Violation Reports................................................ 764
Western Cornbelt Hog Procurement Investigation Report............ 475
Written Testimony of Administrator, James R. Baker............... 429
Y2K Compliance................................................... 776