[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico, Chairman
JAMES T. WALSH, New York MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., SAM FARR, California
Washington ALLEN BOYD, Florida
HENRY BONILLA, Texas
TOM LATHAM, Iowa
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
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
MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS
AND CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Page
Natural Resources Conservation Service........................... 1
Marketing and Regulatory Programs................................ 461
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
63-747 WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman
RALPH REGULA, Ohio DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico JULIAN C. DIXON, California
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
TOM DeLAY, Texas ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
JIM KOLBE, Arizona MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
RON PACKARD, California NANCY PELOSI, California
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
JAMES T. WALSH, New York NITA M. LOWEY, New York
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
HENRY BONILLA, Texas JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan ED PASTOR, Arizona
DAN MILLER, Florida CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia MICHEAL P. FORBES, New York
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey CHET EDWARDS, Texas
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Alabama
Washington MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
California SAM FARR, California
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
TOM LATHAM, Iowa ALLEN BOYD, Florida
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
KAY GRANGER, Texas
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2001
----------
Thursday, March 2, 2000.
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
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
DANA YORK, ACTING DIRECTOR, BUDGET PLANNING AND ANALYSIS DIVISION,
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
STEPHEN DEWHURST, BUDGET OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Skeen. Well, thank you and good morning. Appreciate all
of you being here. It's so quiet it is almost like being in
church.
Today we want to welcome Mr. Jim Lyons, the Under Secretary
for Natural Resources and the Environment, and Mr. Pearlie
Reed, the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Welcome, gentlemen.
Mr. Lyons, based on our conversation yesterday, this will
be the last time that you will be testifying before this
subcommittee, and we would just like to thank you for your
service during your time as Under Secretary. Maybe that is a
faint way of giving you a little endorsement, but we do
appreciate the work that you have done.
The NRCS budget request includes an increase of $86.4
million for conservation operations and increases totaling
nearly $1 billion in mandatory programs that will have to go
through the authorizing committee when the administration sends
up that legislation. It sounds like an ambitious agenda, and we
would like to hear your thoughts on this.
But before I recognize you, I would like to turn to Miss
Kaptur for any welcoming remarks she may have. And I want to
thank you, Marcy. I understand that you have sacrificed a trip
back to your district today to be here with us, and I
appreciate this. This puts us about at the halfway mark on
these hearings. Thank you.
Miss Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We couldn't miss the
hearing of the Natural Resources and Conservation Service. I
also want to thank Mr. Lyons for his service to our country and
for your
appearance here today; all of those that you have brought with
you, Mr. Reed, who has been such a pleasure to work with; Ms.
York; Mr. Sells; and of course Mr. Dewhurst is here for all of
our hearings.
I also want to acknowledge in the audience my former chief
of staff Bobbi Jeanquart, who now works with the Resource
Conservation Development Councils around the country. We are
just so proud of her and the work that she did for our country
and now working in the volunteer and private sector. I love the
photos you have given us here.
urban sprawl
Miss Kaptur. This looks like it will be a very good hearing
this morning. And thank you for everything that you do to help
to strengthen the ecosystem that we are blessed with in this
country.
We recently did a poll in our district, Mr. Chairman, it is
very interesting, asking citizens about the countryside, about
urban sprawl, and whether they thought we as a Nation should be
doing more in order to preserve our heritage and to conserve
it, and 80 percent said yes. Now, I thought maybe it might be
40 or 50, and it was just interesting to look at how those
number came back. So you are part of the most important effort
in our country to do that, and we welcome you here today. Thank
you.
Mr. Skeen. I also want to thank you for the pictures,
particularly, that one on the front, the sheep look real good
up against those cattle. They do commingle.
Mr. Lyons, we will let you have your beginning remarks.
Opening Remarks by Undersecretary Lyons
Mr. Lyons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman I appreciate the
opportunity to be here with you this morning. And, Miss Kaptur
and Mr. Farr, since we didn't have a chance to meet before the
hearing, I want to assure you my comments to Mr. Skeen about my
decision to move on after this year and explore other
opportunities to contribute in the natural resource field is by
no means a prediction about the election, it is simply a
personal decision to move on and hopefully find other ways in
which I can help.
I do want to depart radically from my testimony this
morning, Mr. Chairman, and simply ask that that be made a part
of the record, if I may.
Mr. Skeen. We don't have too many radicals in here, but you
want to be one, go ahead.
american conservation in the new century
Mr. Lyons. I am showing my true colors, I guess. But I want
to focus on three things this morning of concern to the
committee, I think, as Miss Kaptur noted in her opening
remarks, of concern to the citizens in the United States, I
know, from conversations with Mr. Farr, brief conversations
with Mr. Bonilla, concerns that stretch from coast to coast,
and that is the way America and Americans view the future of
conservation in the United States as we face the threshold of
really what is our second century of American conservation.
The conservation movement, of course, began in the early
1900s. Pioneers like Teddy Roosevelt helped to bring the issues
and concerns of conservation into focus for all Americans. For
nearly 100 years we have dealt with many challenges in the
conservation arena. One of, I think, the proud successes is the
work we have done in addressing the concerns that arose out of
the dirty 1930s, with soil and water conservation and the
excesses of erosion. But from my experiences, Mr. Chairman, we
spend a tremendous amount of time debating the issues
associated with public land management, and in your role on the
Interior subcommittee, you and I have had a chance to discuss
those issues as well by virtue of oversight to the Forest
Service's management responsibilities.
land stewardship on private lands
I would suggest to you and the other members of the
committee that in the second century of American conservation
we are going to change our focus. We have to if we are really
going to get at the issues that are affecting the Nation's
environmental quality. We will have to refocus on opportunities
that come with better land stewardship on private lands. Since
private lands represent two-thirds of the American landscape,
they are really going to tell the story of whether or not we
are successful in making further progress in the arenas of
clean air, and clean water and wildlife habitat improvement.
That is where we need to focus our attention. I think the
country is poised and prepared to do so. I think American land
owners, farmers, and ranchers and forestland owners are
prepared and anxious to take up that challenge.
conservation challenges
What I want to do is highlight three things, some of what
we found in the work we have done over the past year in talking
to constituencies and experts in the arena of conservation as
to what they think the ills are that we need to address and the
means we have to do so. Some of that comes from the work we
recently did in analyzing the findings of the 1997 Natural
Resources Inventory, which I will highlight just briefly.
Secondly, I want to talk about how that led to our decision to
put before you what we think is a bold initiative, a $1.3
billion conservation initiative which is part of our 2001
proposal which would make critical investments in the tools and
the technology, and there I think what I mean is the people
that make conservation work across the American landscape in
partnership with private landowners.
Finally, I want to touch base on another issue, and that is
that EPA's efforts to formulate new rules for TMDLs, total
maximum daily loads, which has been quite controversial in the
agricultural community. I want to make clear where USDA stands
on that issue, and then I will close.
With regard to our conservation challenges this past fall,
we held five regional forums on conservation I discussed with
you yesterday, Mr. Chairman. They were interesting forums. We
met with landowners, with interest groups, with the public,
with individuals with expertise in conservation and
environmental issues from across the spectrum of interests
throughout the United States. We learned many interesting
things, but I think most exciting was to learn that there are
many success stories across the country of working partnerships
at the ground level to try and make conservation work based on
what we have learned over a half century of investing in
private land stewardship.
We pulled our information together, and Secretary Glickman
convened a national summit on conservation in Ames, Iowa, on
December 7th this past year. At that time we released new
information from our Natural Resources Inventory and updated
the information that we periodically accumulate. We found some
rather surprising, startling things. I shared a packet of this
information with you yesterday, left one for you, Miss Kaptur,
with Roger, and also left with you a video that I hope you will
have a chance to view. Mr. Bonilla and Mr. Farr, make sure you
get this information as well. In 7 minutes I think the video
describes the challenges we face in clear and unequivocal
terms.
loss of agricultural and forestland
Let me point out some key findings. The conversion of land,
agricultural and forestland, to development is accelerating at
a rapid rate. In fact, in the period from 1992 to 1997, the
average annual rate of conversion was more than double of that
the previous 10 years. So we are losing valuable land, valuable
for producing the goods and services that America expects of
their lands, and also land that is valuable in preserving what
is the quality of life of rural and more and more suburban
America.
soil erosion status
Another interesting and startling finding was the fact that
despite tremendous progress in tackling the issues of soil
erosion, going back to 1982, since 1995, during the period of
1995 to 1997, the progress we have made in tackling soil
erosion has stalled. In 1995, we calculated 1.9 billion tons of
soil was being eroded into the Nation's waterways a year. That
is the same figure that we calculated in 1997. So our progress
has stalled. We are trying to determine why that is.
By our own assessment, at least preliminarily, we see two
things that come into play. One is by design, strategically. We
decided--and I was a part of this as the staff on the House
Agriculture Committee, some of you were involved in this--to
target our resources on what we consider the most critical
conservation, highly erodible lands. There we have made
tremendous progress. Tools like the Conservation Reserve
Program have made a big difference in curbing soil erosion. But
as we did that and failed to make needed additional investments
in conservation because of budget constraints, other
priorities, other needs, we have been forced to pull back in
the conservation work that we have done in other parts of the
Nation. So those non-highly erodible acres are now eroding at a
higher rate, or we believe they are. As a result the progress
that we are making in tackling the erosion is being offset by
increased erosion in other places. So we are literally losing
ground in our battle over erosion, a significant concern.
I don't know that I have--here we go. I would share this
with you. It is difficult to see.
I think even more disconcerting than that--we have copies
of this material for all of you that is being handed out now--
you will see that where the erosion is occurring and is
excessive is reflected by the red here. You will see that it is
in regions of the country where we can least afford to lose
progress. It is in the Chesapeake Bay region in the Eastern
United States. It is in the Great Lakes region, Miss Kaptur,
affecting water quality in that part of the world. It is in
parts of Texas, which is certainly impacting land productivity,
and combined with the excessive erosion in the Upper
Mississippi waterway, leading to hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.
And it is in eastern Oregon, Washington and northern Idaho,
where at the same time we are undertaking a significant effort
to try and protect salmon habitat and reduce the impacts of
change there on the quality of waters. We can't afford to lose
progress there. We are working against ourselves in that
regard.
net losses of wetlands
Finally, I would also comment that we discovered that while
net losses of wetlands is showing progress, that is we are
further reducing the annual loss of wetlands and agriculture,
we are not yet to the commitment that President Bush made a
decade ago now. In fact, what we are finding is if it weren't
for programs like the WRP, we would not be as successful as we
have been in trying to curb the loss of wetlands and
agriculture lands. Part of the loss there, by the way, is
because of increased development where we are losing those
lands not because of any agricultural conversion, but, in fact,
we are losing those lands in total.
national conservation forum
We took this information, presented it to the group
assembled at this December 7th conference, and I would
emphasize it was a wide spectrum of interests representatives
in the Natural Resources Defense Council, from the Cattleman's
Association, from academia, from a wide range of interests and
expertise. And there seem to be unanimity of opinion about how
to deal with these issues. The answer is actually a very simple
one. We simply need to invest in the conservation tools and
programs we know work, the voluntary assistance programs,
conservation programs that help land owners determine how to
help themselves, how to work together as communities, how to
work through the RC&Ds or through watershed councils or
conservation districts.
You all know this because you see this on the landscape day
in and day out. It works. Unfortunately very few people outside
of the agriculture community understand that. You know we are
silently effective in our silence, or our anonymity works
against us in terms of making clear this is a national issue
and requires additional investment.
2001 conservation initiative
We took that information and came back to Washington and
decided we finally needed to do something about it. So we
constructed a $1.3 billion initiative which is in the 2001
budget. We literally constructed that in the last month of
putting together our budget, reflecting what we learned from
our regional conferences in this national forum. And you will
see in that package significant investments in those places
that we think are critical to addressing these national
conservation needs. That is, we propose to increase funding for
the Wetland Reserve Program, for CRP particularly; additional
monies for incentives to enroll producers in conservation
buffers; additional resources for the EQIP program, which is
going to be critically important for addressing the working
landscape, but in particular for dealing with the AFO/CAFO
issue, which is of national significance; additional resources
for the Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program, because there we
have exhausted our authority; additional resources for the
Farmland Protection Program to start to tackle the issue of
accelerated agricultural land loss; and most importantly,
additional resources for technical assistance, because a tool
kit is no good unless you have, to use an analogy, the
carpenters to put it in use. And conservation is something that
requires that hands-on application. You can't do conservation
on the Internet. You can't do conservation unless you have
people on the ground working hand in glove with farmers,
ranchers, and forestland owners.
The program also includes a unique wrinkle, if you will,
and that is a proposal for $600 million for conservation
security payments. That $600 million is intended to provide
additional incentives and support to producers who don't
currently have the financial wherewithal to put conservation
practices in place. So we will compensate them for that.
In essence, we will finally start to pay producers for
producing those nontraditional commodities that are so critical
to the well-being of America. We are going to pay them to
produce clean water. We are going to pay them to improve
wildlife habitat. And we will also give them cost share
assistance to put practices in place. I think that is a novel
approach to doing business and reflects some of our thinking
with the potential changes in farm policy in the context of the
2002 farm bill, because there, at least theoretically, as
certainly Mr. Farr knows from his work on the Agriculture
Committee, there at least has been a philosophical decision to
do away with farm programs. We will see if that actually comes
to pass. But here is another way to tackle these issues.
clean water rules and agriculture
Let me shift gears and talk a little bit about TMDLs,
because that issue has gotten a lot of attention. We have been
working with the Environmental Protection Agency through the
Clean Water Action Plan to try and deal with a whole host of
issues as they relate to clean water. The Environmental
Protection Agency put out a proposed rule for changing the way
in which they implement the total maximum daily load provisions
of the Clean Water Act. They put out a very controversial rule,
one that would grant them new regulatory authorities.
We have strong exception to some of what EPA proposed, and
a very strong letter was sent out under my signature to that
regard. Unfortunately the letter didn't go through clearance,
it didn't go through the Secretary's office. I didn't do my job
as much as I should have to make sure it, in fact, had. The
Secretary has said since he didn't sign off on the letter, it
doesn't represent official Department views, but nevertheless
we stand by the substantive issues in that letter.
As a result of that shot across the bow, so to speak, we
have set up a working group with staff at EPA, and we are
working on a daily basis to try and address the concerns that
we raised, address the concerns of agriculture, place emphasis
on the use of technologies we know work, voluntary assistance
programs to get the job done. The key to making sure we can
follow through on those commitments is funding those programs
and having the resources to do what we do know works best.
So we are committed to making sure that we make progress in
clean water. We are committed to making sure it is done in a
way that makes sense, that is not a threat to agriculture, but
rather viewed as an opportunity. And most importantly, Mr.
Chairman, we are committed to making sure that agriculture
continues to make the valuable contribution it can make to
protecting and restoring America's wonderful landscapes.
Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that I personally
appreciate the extent to which you have always been open to me
and to the Department to listen to these issues to try and help
us work through the difficult times and try to make the
investments we need to make in conservation. I know you feel it
in your heart and your soul. I know, Miss Kaptur, as well, from
conversations we have, of your strong commitment to make sure
that we continue to make those critical investments. I look
forward to working with you on the Great Lakes conference, in
fact, and having a chance to focus on that particular part of
the country and the opportunities there.
It has been a pleasure to work with you, Mr. Chairman. I
look forward to doing so the rest of this year.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you, Mr. Lyons. We certainly appreciate
your feelings. I think you have given us a great summary.
[The prepared statements and biographies of Mr. James R.
Lyons and Mr. Pearlie S. Reed, and the biographies of Mr. Danny
Sells and Ms. Dana York follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Skeen. I would like you, Mr. Reed, to have a chance for
you to have your comments. If you would like to have some time,
you are on stage.
Mr. Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear here before you today. I will keep my comments brief.
With your permission I would like to submit my written
testimony for the record.
Mr. Skeen. It will be done.
Mr. Reed. But I have two points I would like to make.
First, in the great halls of the Capitol, there is a quotation
from Theodore Roosevelt, 1910, and it reads, ``The Nation
behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which
it must turn over to the next generation, increased and not
impaired in value.''.
And this is what I believe the NCRS is all about with our
cooperating organizations throughout the country. I believe
that as this committee goes about making decisions on the
investment that we should make in conservation, that that is
what this committee is all about. And I think working together
we can be successful in turning over to this next generation
increased natural resources assets that will be better for the
next generation and the generation following that.
I would be happy along with Mr. Lyons to respond to any
questions you might have.
Mr. Skeen. We thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
current year staffing
Mr. Skeen. And we will begin--let's take care of the
current fiscal year before we talk about the budget request.
And I think Mr. Lyons gave us a good overview of this
situation. We share the same feeling. The technicians and the
technical people that you have had on the ground have been
sorely missed to some degree because we have just not had the
force that we had at one time and the technical advice that you
had. That is a large employment problem, very difficult to find
people, because a lot of people don't have any technical tie to
the ground and the environment that we had at one time. Do you
have adequate financial resources to ensure that NRCS will not
have to use reduction in force and layoffs or furloughs in the
fiscal year 2000?
Mr. Reed. Yes, sir. We do. But we have done that at the
expense of cutting back to the point where we are doing things
like not maintaining our fleet at an acceptable level. We have
eliminated virtually all of our temporary employment, and we
have done these things with the anticipation that as we move
through this fiscal year into next fiscal year, we will be in a
much better financial position. But we cannot continue to
operate into fiscal year 2001 at the level of cutbacks we have
made in the basic support structure in 2000.
Technical Assistance For FY 2001
Mr. Skeen. In our meeting yesterday we talked about the
funding priorities in this bill, and I just want to let you
know that I appreciated your candor on the subject. But we just
want to make sure that the financial resources that we do have
are being managed in the best way possible. Your budget request
in conservation operations includes an increase of $86 million.
How much of that increase would go to on-the-ground technical
assistance, and how much of that increase would be passed
through the NRCS?
Mr. Reed. All of the proposed increase will ultimately end
up in the provision of technical assistance at the field
office.
Mr. Skeen. The field-office level.
Mr. Reed. The field-office level. With the exception of, I
think, there is a proposal for a $10 million or so grant
program to be passed on to watershed sponsors, local
conservation districts, to hire non-Federal coordinators.
Staffing Change
Mr. Skeen. Last year the President's budget proposed an
almost 1,000-person decrease in NRCS staffing. And this year
the budget proposal increased the funding that will be result
in over 1,800 staff year increase. Why the change in the
philosophy?
Mr. Reed. The 1,800 staff year increase, of course,
reflects what Mr. Lyons talked about earlier. The 1,000--I
think it was 1,055, to be precise--decrease that we thought we
were facing last year at this time was a real figure at that
time, but because of the direction that we got in the
appropriations, and because of some of the things I mentioned
earlier relative to us cutting back, we were able to manage, we
believe, through this fiscal year without making that kind of
reduction. We are going to have approximately 350 or so staff
year reduction this year, and we think we can manage that with
attrition.
FY 2001 Technical Assistance Priority
Mr. Skeen. Within the $86 million increase, please identify
the top priorities.
Mr. Reed. The top priorities for the administration, of
course, would be the provision of conservation technical
assistance, to beef up our AFO/CAFO-type work.
Mr. Skeen. On-the-ground personnel.
Mr. Reed. On-the-ground work to work with farmers and
ranchers, to deal with the challenges associated with
comprehensive nutrient management planning, those kinds of
issues.
Mr. Skeen. I think that covers it pretty well. And we are
in agreement on that.
Miss Kaptur.
CCC Funding Shortfall
Miss Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all I wanted to thank Mr. Lyons and Mr. Reed and
all those others who have come from the Department for some of
the excellent information that you are preparing that help the
Congress and help the country get their arms around these
questions of resource conservation. I am sitting here listening
to you, and I am looking at these pictures of orchards, and I
am looking at land converted to development here, and I am
thinking, hmm, this is where I live. This makes sense to me.
I have some questions on your budget, and following on what
the Chairman has asked, for this fiscal year it is my
understanding that the NRCS may not have sufficient funds
available through the CCC to carry out your technical
assistance programs. I am wondering if you do have sufficient
funds to maintain current level of services this year, and if
not, how many positions are you going to have to reduce by the
end of this fiscal year if you do not have sufficient funds?
Mr. Reed. Okay. Where we have a big shortfall is in our
ability to service what we believe now will be the program
level for the Conservation Reserve Program, and that is about
$35 million shortfall. And we believe that on or about the 30th
or so of July, we will have exhausted the resources that have
been made available to service that program. We have pretty
much eliminated our temporary employment. We have cut back on
just about every so-called nonfixed item of expense to try and
ensure that we can maintain our permanent full-time work force.
And we will be able to do that, but we won't be able, based on
what we think is going to happen with the Conservation Reserve
Program, to service that program in August and September.
Supplemental for Technical Assistance
Miss Kaptur. Mr. Reed, I don't know this, but has the
administration included that additional need in its
supplemental request to the Congress?
Mr. Reed. I will have to ask Mr. Lyons or Mr. Dewhurst to
respond to that.
Mr. Lyons. I think that is one for you, Steve.
Mr. Dewhurst. Well the answer is not yet. We are working
with OMB. We are looking at the fiscal 2000 issue. The
administration's proposal for 2001 would raise this legislative
cap so that there is sufficient money beginning in 2001 to make
the servicing available. But the issue this year we are still
looking at with our folks at OMB.
Section 11 Cap
Miss Kaptur. What is the reason for the shortfall?
Underfunding last year, or just something that was
unanticipated?
Mr. Reed. A combination of both. The reason for the
shortfall is basically the section 11 cap, the CCC section 11
cap, which provides for only x amount of dollars to be spent,
and there is not enough money within that cap to provide for
the reimbursement for the technical services of NRCS to service
CCC programs.
Miss Kaptur. Does that have any relationship to the fact
that we quadrupled shipments through the CCC last year
internationally, and some of those funds were drawn for other
purposes?
Mr. Reed. I don't believe so, but, again, I would have to
defer to Mr. Dewhurst.
Technical Assistance for Farm Bill Programs
Mr. Dewhurst. Not directly. When the Congress enacted the
farm bill in 1996, the Congress also authorized a series of
conservation programs. The Congress also in the farm bill
limited the amount of money the Commodity Credit Corporation
can pay to other Federal agencies for services to the 1995
level.
The conservation programs that were created in the 1996
farm bill were not in existence in 1995, so there has never
been sufficient money within this legislative cap to provide
sufficient funds to the NRCS to service the programs. We have
sort of struggled along the last 3 or 4 years. We found a few
dollars here and there that were legally available, but,
frankly, we have sort of exhausted all those resources now. So
we don't have a lot of places to go unless the law is changed
and this cap is eliminated or increased.
Miss Kaptur. Yes, Mr. Lyons.
Mr. Lyons. Miss Kaptur, I would just say that the section
11 cap has been a source of debate for quite some time,
particularly as demand has grown for conservation programs, as
Steve has alluded to. I would implore you and all the members
of the subcommittee, who I think understand this issue very
well, to talk to your colleagues on the authorizing committee
about this particular issue, because I think the assumptions
that were made in establishing the section 11 cap don't fit
today.
The belief was we should limit the number of bureaucrats we
hire while we expand programs. It misses the mark in
understanding that you need conservationists, you need the
people who could provide the technical assistance to provide
the additional services that come as those programs and demands
have grown. And I think we need to correct that misperception.
This isn't simply about more FTEs, it is about service to your
constituents, it is about service to the people we serve
directly. That section 11 cap has become a tremendous problem
for us to make sure we have the resources we need, not simply
to grow the size of the agency. That is not the intent, but to
make sure that we can actually provide adequate and appropriate
service to the people who need it.
Source of Technical Assistance in FY 2001
Miss Kaptur. I know that I am out of time here. I don't
expect the authorizing committee is going to move anything this
year, but I know they are doing hearings. But in talking to
some of the Members, they don't expect that there is going to
be any authorizing legislation passed relative to farm
legislation. So where does that leave us?
Mr. Lyons. Well, not that I am a proponent of legislating
on appropriations bills, but there is a place to fix it.
Miss Kaptur. I will have several additional questions in
succeeding rounds. Thank you very much.
Mr. Skeen. Mrs. Emerson.
Voluntary and Regulatory Rules for Conservation
Mrs. Emerson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome
you all here and state for record that I really appreciate the
great people that you all have working on the State and on the
local level, particularly Roger Hanson, who is our State
conservationist, and Ron Darden, who is one of our district
conservationists. They and the field staff do a tremendous job,
and I can't compliment them enough for their hard work.
Before I get into some specific questions, let me just say
that I am a little bit confused, because on the one hand, Mr.
Lyons, you talk about voluntary and incentive-based programs
that promote best land management practices, a partnership
effort, and then on the other hand suddenly we have TMDL regs,
we have animal feeding operation strategies, we have roadless
initiatives, we have got Forest Service management plans, and
there is a lot of heavy-handed regulation here. These
regulations are not voluntary. Consequently I guess I am
somewhat confused by your statement that the administration
committed to voluntary programs, because I get the feeling at
times that there is a misunderstanding on the part of the
administration that, quite frankly, our farmers know that if
they don't take care of the land, the land is not going to take
care of them. And I think that I am a little bit put off by the
heavy-handedness. I just state that for the record.
Regulation of Total Maximum Daily Loads by EPA
And let me go ahead and ask you, do you really feel like
your involvement with the TMDL regs represents a partnership
effort? I mean, these regulations are not voluntary.
Mr. Lyons. I don't know if you heard my comments earlier
about a letter that was sent.
Mrs. Emerson. I did indeed.
Mr. Lyons. I would submit to you that we are not going to
get anything done unless we work in partnership with farmers
and ranchers and that USDA representing the interests of
agriculture and forestry works with EPA to make sure that
whatever rules they promulgate make sense, that they achieve
the goal we all share, which is improving water quality and
maintaining the productive capacity of the land and the
capability of producers to farm, to stay in business.
We are working with EPA to try and address those concerns,
and I respectfully request that you hold fire until you see
what comes of that dialogue and what comes out of the rules.
The rules are not done yet.
Administration's Position on Voluntary Conservation
With regard to your comment, though, I know you didn't ask
me to respond, but I couldn't help but respond to your comment
about heavy-handedness. You know, I would suggest to you that
public land issues are certainly different than the private
land issues, but in none of those instances are we in the
administration proposing, at least not from the USDA
standpoint, any new or significant regulations. AFO/CAFO is a
good example. It is largely a voluntary strategy. Ninety
percent of all AFOs and CAFOs would not be affected in any
regulatory way. The discretion exists to deal with those
remaining 5 percent which EPA would administer. That is not a
role that USDA would play. Demands that will be placed on NRCS
and agriculture will come providing additional technical
assistance and support. We pushed hard to make sure that that
was the way to do business because we don't think a regulatory
strategy will work in addressing these issues. We have proof to
the contrary in terms of what we have succeeded with, as you
commented in your opening remarks.
So I don't think there is any inconsistency here. The right
tool for the right issue. When it comes to conservation issues,
when it comes to dealing with clean water and private lands, et
cetera, we need to stick with these voluntary approaches. We
need to invest in them. We need to help land owners help
themselves.
Regulation and Property Rights
Mrs. Emerson. I certainly don't think the TMDL is anything
that is voluntary and does, in fact, deal with private
property. Speaking of which, have you all done--and I
understand you were asked this by Senator Lugar last week a
cost benefit analysis on the TMDL regs. If not, are there plans
in place for doing that before final regs are issued?
Mr. Lyons. We are in the process of assessing the workload
that it would create for USDA doing a cost analysis there.
USDA Support for Property Owners
Mrs. Emerson. How about for the property owners and farmers
and ranchers?
Mr. Lyons. The EPA has an obligation in promulgating their
own rule to assess what the costs are going to be. They have to
do that in clearance and under SBREFA, as you understand. So we
are in the process of assessing what we think the costs of
implementation will be. That is a part of the ongoing dialogue.
And we have some questions about the adequacy of the analysis
they did, and we are pushing back hard to try and make sure we
get the right information.
Mrs. Emerson. I would appreciate your pushing even harder
because it remains to be seen that any of their analyses are
balanced.
So you can't tell me right now what role you see USDA
playing in the implementation process of the TMDL regs, or can
you?
Mr. Lyons. Well, I can tell you that we don't have a role
in implementing the regs. The EPA regs, that is EPA
responsibility. We certainly have a role in dealing with non-
point source pollution and water quality issues. We will
continue to play that role aggressively spending upon the
resources that this committee gives us.
Mrs. Emerson. But you won't actually be working in EPA in
making sure that----
Mr. Lyons. Not at all. Not in any way, shape or form.
Mrs. Emerson. I have other questions. I will wait for the
next round.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Farr.
Urban Sprawl
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I fly across in country every week from here to
California, and I am convinced just flying across the United
States that the American landscape is more in the hands of USDA
than it is in Interior, and that these programs we are talking
about are really the key essence of the landscape. As you said,
it is the mostly in private ownership.
First of all, I would like to thank you Mr. Sells and Mr.
Reed for releasing the money and meeting with my constituents
on this on the Salinas Valley water project. I appreciate your
leadership on that.
Agricultural Issues in California
Secondly, I would like to tell you that I think that the
attitude that we have in California is a little bit different
than Missouri. Land owners in California have 33 million
people. Urban sprawl is the number one political issue in the
State. Farmers are getting much more progressive. They are
realizing it is all about land use.
I think the frustration I have in looking at all these
Federal programs is that it is not interrelated with local land
use. I think you give away too much. I mean, most land owners
in our area would be willing to give up the land that is
necessary for habitat management and streambed riparian
protection without being paid for it as long as the rest of the
land they could manage without a lot of regulation.
Water Quality Protection
So the couple of things that are going on, we have the Farm
Bureau and all of the ag interests signed into a program in
Monterey Bay, which is a huge three-county region, the
watershed goes into the national marine sanctuary which is one
Federal policy. So what we are looking at is a water quality
protection program for the whole watershed. I think this is the
first time in the United States that it is going to be so
comprehensive. It is a consortium of 25 government and private
groups. It will be a partnership to enhance and protect the
physical, chemical and biological conditions of the
sanctuaries, the wetlands, into the sanctuary and the adjacent
watersheds. The project will cover 5,000 square miles of marine
water and 11 major watersheds covering 7,000 square miles;
includes the regional monitoring, data sharing, urban and
agricultural runoff, the marinas, the boating, the wetland, the
riparian issues, point source pollution. And the focus of the
program is to effectively integrate the large number of
existing programs, State, Federal and local, and projects
related to these issues, and to eliminate the gaps, redundancy,
and pool resources to address the problem.
This will all be done by cooperative agreement, which has
been signed. What I am asking NRCS to do is to help with some
technical and financial assistance. And I really want you to
look into this program and help us with this financial
assistance. Your people on the ground are very keen on it. And
we can talk more about that.
Easements
I am trying to figure out all these CSP and conservation
reserve programs--you indicated that under the Conservation
Security Program we give annual payments to farmers. And if we
didn't do it, they would just abandon these conservation
measures because they don't have the necessary financial
resources. And the purpose of giving it to them is to reduce
erosion, to improve wildlife habitat and sustainable soil.
Why don't we get back more? I mean, why don't we just have
permanent covenants on that land? You are paying them for it.
Why don't we buy an easement--rather than just make these
annual payments? Relating to Mrs. Kaptur's comment, how much of
this million acres per year that has been converted have we put
Federal dollars there to try to keep that land in its proper
natural state, and then the land owner gives up and says, well,
I am not doing this anymore, we are going to sell it for
housing.
We have already put a lot of dough in there to try to do
the opposite. If, indeed, we are going to have preservation of
ag land, and it is really complicated in California. You know
what it is worth, $35,000 an acre. You got to make a living. If
you buy ag land, you got to still make--payments on it, you got
to make a killing. We grow things like strawberries and high
value-added products. But we are in a new era where land owners
who are serious about being in agriculture realize that they
are going to have to manage their land properly. They are
willing to put their own money into it to do it and to stay
permanently in agriculture.
Federal Return for Payments
I can't understand why we don't as a Federal Government get
more permanency from the money that we put in and the aid that
we give them so that when they do, if they do sell it, all the
stuff that we have tried to do is for naught.
Mr. Lyons. I will attempt to address that, Mr. Farr. I
think in part your question reflects the extent to which
California is different from the rest of the world in that I
think there is or has been stronger interest in California in
designing programs that would provide more permanency. But
those aren't going to fly in Missouri or other parts of the
world that the folks on the other side of the dais, I think,
represent.
When we worked with the Congress in 1996 in putting
together the farm bill programs, we tried to design programs,
you know, as the authorizing committee that ultimately put this
together, that would fit in the different circumstances across
the landscape. So we do have provisions and programs that
provide for permanent easements. But, for example, in the WRP
program, the Wetland Reserve Program, we have provisions that
wetland owners choose whether they want short-term or permanent
easements. We have tools that provide for a range of
circumstances in response to the needs of different land
owners.
Mr. Farr. In that short term what happens if they give up
and they abandon it? What have we gotten out of it?
Mr. Lyons. Well, we have gotten some conservation over the
periods of time. Hopefully, through their experience, land
owners are going to stick with it. We haven't had enough
experience under this incremental easement program to know what
the permanency will be. But the critical thing--
Mr. Farr. Do they have to pay back anything?
conservation incentives
Mr. Lyons. They would if they were to break the terms of
the contract during its tenure, but not after the fact, as I
recall.
I think an important point is, you know, in 1985, 1990, the
original concepts for CRP, et cetera, were designed with a
philosophy that what we got back was as producers participated
in farm programs, they had to put conservation programs in
place. They couldn't sod-bust, they couldn't swamp-bust. And
they had to have conservation plans under conservation
compliance in place. So what we, quote, got back was a
commitment to conservation where term producers got farm
program payments.
Now, the question is in 2002 if farm programs does appear,
what are we going to have? So we are redesigning the system.
The conservation security payments you referenced are a
proposal to come up with a different system of investing in
conservation, providing incentives, not threatening land
owners, but saying we are going to compensate you for those
commodities you can't capture in the marketplace; for the work
you do to generate clean water, we are going to pay you for
that. It is a public good. For the work you do to improve
wildlife habitat which you can't capture unless you lease hunt
your farm, we are going to pay you for that.
Mr. Farr. Don't you have to extract some permanency? Here
is what happens is the better you take care of the land, in the
long run the more valuable that land is going to be. So you
have had the government essentially assist you in upgrading the
quality of your land. Then you go and sell it for development,
and you get a big price because the land is in better
condition, and it is more attractive for building homes on, and
the government gets nothing back.
I mean, let's take out an equity interest so when the
development goes, at least we can share in the value of the
development. I think we need to use more business sense here.
Mr. Lyons. Some of our programs provide for permanent
easements. Farmland protection would. Forest legacy, which is
actually a forest program, would. That is a philosophical
debate that you all have to have, because ultimately you will
write the laws that we have to implement in that context. That
is how we came out in 1996.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Bonilla.
USDA's Position on EPA Clean water Rule
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lyons, I will be very frank this morning because I
think I speak for a lot of farmers and ranchers out there. We
were so proud of the USDA's initial letter on the TMDL
situation that came out of the EPA initially, that some of us
in a bipartisan way, and including the Ranking Members on the
authorizing committee as well, and the Chairman and key members
of this subcommittee, again bipartisan, said, in essence, thank
you.
I want to submit that letter for the record, if I could,
Chairman.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bonilla. We wrote to Ms. Browner saying thank you to
USDA for standing up for the farmers and ranchers of this
country and, quite frankly, standing up to some of the radical,
extreme efforts by the EPA on TMDL. And we were disappointed
that in the end you guys wimped out on the farmers and
ranchers.
You are the U.S. Department of Agriculture. You don't have
to carry the water for the EPA. You need to stand up for this
Nation's agricultural industry. That is, after all, what this
agency was set up for in the beginning, to look after those
interests, and not some other agenda that might be out there
that, quite frankly, is in contrast and adverse to what a lot
of our farmers and ranchers are trying to accomplish out there.
At a recent hearing on TMDL before the Transportation
Committee, you stated you were trying to work out concerns you
have over the proposed regulations. I would just appreciate
it--you don't have to get into it now if you don't want because
this subject has been brought up a couple of times already--if
you provide the committee with a list of those concerns and how
USDA would like to see them resolved and the progress made on
each one, because if the USDA does not take a strong stand in
this area, the EPA is going to roll anything, any concerns that
you might have.
[The information follows:]
Total Maximum Daily Load
The main concerns of USDA are as follows. First, we want
the EPA rules to show support for and recognition of the key
role USDA conservation programs play in achieving water quality
improvements. The USDA has forged many significant partnerships
implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs). Farmers put in
streamside buffers and idle environmentally sensitive lands to
improve water quality. The Wetlands Reserve Program, the
Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) and one of its
predecessors the Water Quality Incentive Program have benefited
thousands of farmers and ranchers and helped them to improve
the productivity of their operations through improved
conservation. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
(CREP) is playing an important role in protecting the waters of
the Chesapeake Bay, salmon habitat in Oregon and Washington,
and drinking water supplies for New York City. We want these
voluntary partnerships to be given due credit. These on-the-
ground actions need to be includes in what EPA considers
``reasonable assurance'' a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) will
be implemented. Second, we are discussing with EPA when and if
silvicultural activities should be subject to National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water
permits. Implementation of BMPs can often alleviate water
quality problems and EPA should utilize BMPs to the greatest
extent possible. Third, we want the best-available science to
be used by the EPA, States, and Tribes in setting and
implementing TMDLs. Theoretical models sometimes have high
levels of uncertainty and there are often gaps in the data
regarding what is natural background pollution versus what is
caused by human actions. When data or analytical techniques are
lacking, that uncertainty needs to be recognized by the TMDL.
Fourth, we want to work with EPA in developing comprehensive
cost projections of the proposed TMDL rule. Finally, we want to
establish good communication between USDA and the EPA, as well
as our state and local partners. USDA has formed an interagency
group with EPA to work through our concerns. That group has
been meeting regulatory and while progress is being made, this
is a technical area involving a great deal of complexity. The
work of the interagency group is ongoing so it is difficult to
provide specific conclusions at this time about the progress we
have achieved.
Representing Agriculture's Position on Clean Water Rules
Mr. Bonilla. So I hope that the concerns of farmers and
ranchers, agriculture, are addressed in this area. So if you
would like to comment briefly, fine; otherwise I would ask in
essence to submit this for the record.
Mr. Lyons. I appreciate the opportunity to comment, Mr.
Bonilla. I would assure you that we are not wimping out, to use
your term.
Mr. Bonilla. You can see how a lot of people perceive that.
Mr. Lyons. I understand that. But what I have to worry
about in the end is where we end up.
Mr. Bonilla. For agriculture.
Mr. Lyons. Where we end up for agriculture, and the Nation
as a whole.
Mr. Bonilla. No, agriculture, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Mr. Lyons. I understand that, Mr. Bonilla. I understand
that perfectly well. I know what I need to do in my job to make
sure that Agriculture's interests are represented, and we do a
good job of ensuring we address clean water in a way that
represents, reflects and is responsive to Agriculture's needs.
I understand that perfectly well. But the way that letter was
drafted unfortunately addressed legal issues that I don't have
the authority nor the expertise to address, but a lot of legal
opinions with whether or not EPA has the legal authority to do
what they are doing. I will not engage----
Mr. Bonilla. It was your letter.
Mr. Lyons. Yeah, it was my letter. It had my signature
block on it. I made that point before, Mr. Bonilla. I don't
back down from that in any way, shape or form.
Mr. Bonilla. It sounds like you are.
Mr. Lyons. I am not. I am trying to make this clear, and if
you let me finish, I will.
In addition, I don't think the way you fix a problem is
getting in the face of the person that you have to work with to
resolve this. And so we have taken a little different tack on
this. We made our point, and now we are trying to work this
out. The letter is great legal fodder for the litigation that
may follow whatever rulemaking ends up with, but that was not
my goal. My goal was to make clear we have some serious
problems with the rule, how it has been drafted. We have worked
as partners before. We need to get back to the table and work
as partners again. That was my intent. I can assure you that is
my goal.
We would be glad to give you a list of the issues that we
are attempting to address here as well as describe for you the
nature of the dialogue and what we hope that accomplishes.
Urban Resources Partnership Program Audit
Mr. Bonilla. I appreciate that.
I would like to move to a different area. Last year Mr.
Reed testified that the NRCS was being spread too thin. He
outlined some concerns he has today as well that he has dealt
with recently. Fleet maintenance is one thing you addressed.
This question relates directly to a budgeting and prioritizing
of funds. Once again, the budget this year is full of new
initiatives and programs; however, at this time I would like to
focus on a program that was started in fiscal year 1994 by Mr.
Lyons. It was not authorized by Congress. The Urban Resources
Partnership Program.
Recently the OIG audit identified approximately $21 million
in misappropriated funds, funds that could have been used for
fleet maintenance and personnel issues and office equipment and
things that Mr. Reed was talking about earlier. This includes
money spent to pay for Sierra Club outings, wall murals, and
money used to fund civil lawsuits. But even more disturbing is
your reluctance to accept the responsibility for programs
placed under your leadership and created by you.
Under what authority did you expend these funds, and could
you please provide the committee a detailed list for each of
the fiscal years the program has been run by your Department,
the exact money spent for each fiscal year, and from what
accounts the money was taken?
Mr. Lyons. Be glad to provide that to you Mr. Bonilla.
[The information follows:]
Urban Resources Partnership Authorization
The authorizing legislation used by Natural Resources
Conservation Services to support the Urban Resources
Partnership is the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment
Act, Public Law 74-46, 49 Stat. 163, 16 U.S.C. 590a-f.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
USDA's Response to URP Audit
Mr. Lyons. If I could have 2 minutes to respond, I
appreciate it.
Mr. Bonilla. I am out of time, but I am sure the Chairman
will permit.
Mr. Skeen. Go ahead.
Mr. Lyons. Let me state at the outset that I have strong
exception to Mr. Viadero's study and review. What Mr. Viadero
didn't have the benefit of, or at least didn't communicate to
the committee, I don't believe, was a response memo that I
prepared to his study. I would like to submit copies of that
for the record, Mr. Chairman, if I could.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Authority to Conduct URP
Mr. Lyons. This memo, I think, highlights some important
problems with Mr. Viadero's analysis. Basically his analysis is
focused on a presumption that NRCS does not have the authority
to do what we sought to do, but as is pointed out in a
subsequent OGC review that I requested, a review of their
initial position, OGC pointed out a very important oversight in
their initial analysis which was the basis for Roger's
commentary. The OGC stated, quote, our prior opinion on this
subject did not take into consideration the conservation
operations appropriations language and its relevance for
understanding the breadth of the 1935 act. And it goes on to
explain that the Secretary's authority is quite broad.
In addition, I would point out that we have had extensive
conversations regarding this program with the committee in the
past, and the Chairman and I did have a chance to visit on this
yesterday. I appreciated that.
Mr. Bonilla. Your response, by the way, I am told, and I
have a copy here, was included in the OIG's report.
Mr. Lyons. No, it was it was not included in the initial
report, I can tell you that. In addition----
Mr. Bonilla. I have a copy here.
Mr. Lyons. What is the date of my memorandum? I don't have
any follow-up report to Mr. Viadero. Well, then, I encourage
you to read that, because I think it provides important
information that perhaps Roger has not looked at closely.
In addition, I would point out in dialogue with the
committee we discussed this issue, provided additional
information for the committee with regard to funding for this
program. And I would also like to submit for the record a
letter that Chairman Skeen had sent to Mr. Glickman regarding
this issue in which he pointed out at least in 1998 that he
didn't have any objection to the allocation of funds related to
this program. So we have been open about the dialogue.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Clerk's note.--The subsequent House report 105-588
accompanying the fiscal year 1999 appropriations act continued
language that funds were not available for the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative, the Urban Resources Partnership and
the Northwest Salmon Recovery Initiative until justification
and reprogramming requests were approved.]
Mr. Bonilla. Are you pleased with the way the money was
distributed to the groups that I mentioned briefly?
Mr. Lyons. Let me suggest two things, if I could,
Congressman. I think the one thing I would point out is that
you know we designed this program to try and address the large
portion of the American population that doesn't understand
conservation, doesn't understand agriculture, has no idea where
their food comes from, and needs to learn a little bit more
about their connections to the land. We are serving
disadvantaged communities, we are serving African communities,
Latino communities, Asian Pacific communities in ways in which
they have never gotten assistance.
We designed the program, though, so there would be no
overhead. This is one of those programs where all the money
went to the ground. We designed the program so that the
guidance would come from local steering committees of agency
officials. It was multiagency. We took the NRCS money and we
multiplied the benefit in working with Forest Service, with the
Fish and Wildlife Service, the Park Service, with HUD and other
entities.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you for extending my time.
I just have a final comment. I think some of these
expenditures are way over the line, but we can get into this at
another time. Thank you, Mr. Lyons.
Mr. Lyons. I would be glad to visit with you at any time
about that, Mr. Bonilla.
additional local level technical assistance
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Lyons, Mr.
Reed and others, thank you for coming. I know you have a tough
job and certainly want you, Secretary Lyons, to take a deep
breath.
Mr. Lyons. It is getting me excited now.
Mr. Boyd. I don't know really where to start, Secretary
Lyons. I know you probably have heard me say this before, Mr.
Reed, when I was growing up as a young man, the Soil
Conservation Service was a technical assistance agency which
helped the farmers through some really severe erosion problems
in this country. And Congress put in place this mechanism by
which we could continue to conserve our soil, and Soil
Conservation Service is an integral part of that.
I remember growing up as a young man that we had a local
director, that stayed there for 30 years and we considered him
as a part of our family. We loved him, and he helped us do all
kinds of things to conserve our soil and make sure that erosion
was minimized.
I think the general consensus among my constituents now who
are in the farming business, is that NRCS, has transformed
itself over the last few years from a technical assistance
agency to a compliance enforcement agency. And I know you have
probably heard me say that before. I have had this discussion
with Mr. Glasgow at the State office. The State people have a
tough job. I am proud of those folks. I work with them
regularly. Your county folks, they really do have a tough job,
also. My questions are going to be along those lines because I
really would like to see NRCS be a technical assistance agency
again.
You talk about that in your budget. You have asked for a
considerable amount of additional money to provide technical
assistance or beef up your technical assistance issues. And I
simply would ask you if you did receive the $28 million in
funding increase that you requested for field-based technical
assistance, what improvements would my constituents see as
customers to your local district conservation office?
Mr. Reed. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. What you would see in your
congressional district would be a reflection of what that--
whatever percentage of that $28 million would be as it relates
to what has been identified in Florida as the needs on the
ground for technical assistance to provide to land owners. An
estimate of what that could be I could provide for you later
for the record, but every penny of that would be targeted for
the local field office operations.
[The information follows:]
Florida Staff Year Increase
If the Natural Resources Conservation Service received an
additional $28 million in technical assistance, I would ensure
the entire amount would be allocated to our field offices, with
nothing going to our National Headquarters offices. It is
difficult to determine Florida's exact share of the $28 million
without knowing which resource concerns the additonal funding
will address. However, by comparing the workload analysis
staffing need for Florida and the total national staffing need,
we can determine Florida would get six to eight new field
employees.
improving the focus of technical assistance
Mr. Boyd. Well, I just want to say that I think the problem
is just a little bit larger than throwing a few bucks at it. I
think what happened is the focus of Agriculture has changed on
the technical assistance side. It is not the fault of the
people on the ground, because I don't think some of them are
properly trained in technical assistance or have the
background.
We have had this discussion before that you are having
trouble hiring people at that level with the expertise to know
how to solve some of these problems. I think the focus of the
agency has shifted to compliance and some other conservation
issues on a nationwide basis. But I wanted to make that point,
and I appreciate your answer.
forest service access and road construction
Mr. Secretary, I want to go to another issue. Congress
clearly states its policy with regard to access and road
construction in United States Code 16, section 532, and I
quote, ``The Congress hereby finds and declares that the
construction and maintenance of an adequate system of roads and
trails within and near the National Forest and other lands
administered by the Forest Service is essential if increasing
demands for timber, recreation and other uses of such lands are
to be met, and that such a system is essential to enable the
Secretary to provide for intensive use, protection, development
and management of these lands under the principles of multiple
use and sustained yields of products and services.''.
I don't know how much clearer the congressional policy for
this issue, road maintenance in our National Forest, could be.
How is it that the Forest Service can justify its dismissal of
such plainly stated congressional will?
Mr. Lyons. We haven't, sir. I don't think we are in
disagreement with you at all. Could you point to where we have?
Mr. Boyd. Well, only that I go to your budget summary,
budget request, and you are asking for $13 million additional
money for road maintenance, but on the other, the road
construction side, you have bypassed any additional funding
request, and that temporary suspension is in effect. And I
quote from this: ``Temporary suspension is in effect until the
development of a revised transportation policy and new
analytical tools or 18 months, whichever is sooner. A proposed
transportation policy rule is expected in 2000.''
Mr. Lyons. So you are talking about the temporary road
construction to roadless areas, Mr. Boyd. Just to clarify, let
me explain why we did so, and, of course, this relates to why
we are studying the roadless area issue. I don't want to take
the agriculture subcommittee's time to too large a degree, but
let me explain.
As I think you are aware, we have over 300,000 miles of
roads in the National Forest System. We have 55 percent of all
roads on all public lands. That includes Park Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, et cetera. We have
such a huge system, we can't maintain it. We have an $8.4
billion backlog in road maintenance on the National Forest.
Every year we only get 20 percent of the opportunities we need
to maintain a small percentage of the system, the system, the
major part of the system that is used. We can't keep up, so the
backlog grows every year.
I think you would agree that the best way to get out of a
hole is to, first of all, stop digging. And so we elected to
place a moratorium on building new roads until we could get a
handle on how to maintain the critical system that exists, just
as the law directed us to maintain the system which is
essential as a part of the infrastructure of rural America.
That is what we are attempting to do.
Just this morning Secretary Glickman is announcing a
proposed policy for how we are going to manage and maintain
that existing road system. As you are well aware, this past
fall the President directed us to look at issues associated
with the management and use of roadless areas as well.
We are trying to get a handle on this huge problem. I agree
with you completely. I want to be clear, we did get additional
road maintenance funds, which I dearly wanted. I wanted
additional money for construction and reconstruction not
necessarily in roadless areas, but to maintain that system
again and to fix problems that exist with the system as it is
currently laid out. OMB simply did not provide us the funds.
That is evidence to the fact in, my mind, that we have to fix
this roadless issue.
As you recall, just 3 or 4 years ago, the Forest Service
almost lost its entire road budget on the floor of the House.
We missed by one vote. I don't know how the members on this
committee voted on this issue. I think you are on different
sides of this issue. Mr. Hinchey is very familiar with this
from their experiences on the Interior appropriations
committee. That was a clear signal to me that we had to get on
this issue, battle over road construction funding for the--to
the roadless areas. That is why we are asking the American
public to tell us how they want us to use their roadless area
in the future. At the same time we are trying to get the
resources to manage the existing infrastructure.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time is up. I
know we will have another round.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Latham.
usda's position on epa proposed water quality rules
Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome. I guess
I--on the proposed rules from EPA, I really want to make it
very clear I have to go back and talk to people at home and let
them know what your position is, for sure, and the real concern
there is waffling on the your opposition. Could you state
clearly, you know, what is your position? Do you oppose the
proposed regulations? And also I would like your opinion
whether or not you believe, and the position of the Department,
is that the proposal is not legitimate or does not--it
conflicts with current law.
Mr. Lyons. Let me try and address that, Mr. Latham. I think
the best way to do this is I will send you copies of my
testimony and Secretary Glickman's testimony recently before
the relevant committees and subcommittees. As Secretary
Glickman stated, the letter does not represent official USDA
policy. At the same time, we have grave concerns with a number
of elements, provisions of the proposals put forward by EPA. We
were never sitting down face to face with them, representing
Agriculture's interests, representing a common concern for
addressing the water quality concerns of a Nation to the extent
that pollution remains a concern and seeking to fix those
issues.
On the matter of legal authority, we will not express a
position on legal authority, because EPA has responsibility for
implementing their legal authorities. We don't ask them to
comment on ours, and it is not appropriate for us to comment on
theirs.
proposed crp expansion
Mr. Latham. In your budget proposal, you want to go to 40
million acres in the CRP program. First of all, how many acres
are currently in CRP? Authorized 36.4 million; how many are
actually in?
Mr. Lyons. We will give you the exact number in one second.
Miss Kaptur. Would the gentleman yield on that point? I
wanted to ask from the testimony that has been submitted, it
says 40 million acres. How much is that? Is that Massachusetts?
Is that a corner of Ohio? How much is 40 million acres? It
would be helpful to express it in terms of something the rest
of the country can understand.
Mr. Reed. Forty million acres would be about four-tenths
the size of California.
Miss Kaptur. Oh, all right. Well that is better then.
Mr. Latham. It is all in Mr. Farr's district on a permanent
basis.
Mr. Lyons. We are at about 31.5 million acres, I believe.
Mr. Latham. And I guess begging the question here, why do
you want to go to 40 million if you are not using the acres you
currently have authority for?
Mr. Lyons. I think there are two answers for that. One is
we have heard overwhelmingly from producers and from others who
see value in the CRP that they want to have the option and the
opportunity to enroll. They like that. Number two is we think
that offers us a tremendous opportunity to deal with water
quality concerns through continued sign-up of CRP acres in
riparian buffers. We want to have the flexibility to address
what----
potential for crp enrollment
Mr. Latham. I could take care of half a million of those
acres tomorrow in Iowa. But the acres are sitting there with
the authority to use them. We have producers who would love--
land that should never have come out of CRP, but because of the
way it was administered previously were not allowed to be put
back in. I can show you a lot of very highly erodible land in
my district that could not meet the standards, and it is very
frustrating knowing that there is that many acres sitting there
unused, 5 million acres that is authorized and you are not
using it. And now--I mean, I want a bill to go to 45 million
acres.
Mr. Lyons. Okay.
Mr. Latham. Yeah, fine, except if you are not going to use
it, what is the use?
Mr. Lyons. I agree with you, Congressman, that we have had
some problems in the administration in the past. We are trying
it. Actually NRCS doesn't have the management responsibility.
We don't administer CRP. We work in concert with FSA. But we
know that we can do a better job of letting land owners know of
this option of enrollment of lands in the riparian buffer
initiative. We are making progress in that regard. I know
Governor Vilsack has launched an initiative to deal with water
quality in Iowa. We think CRP could be a tool. So that is why
we are trying to provide more flexibility.
Mr. Latham. I guess my time is up, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Hinchey.
excessive cropland erosion
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lyons, thank you for your testimony. I am sorry I was
late, but we have subcommittees meeting at the same time in
this building, so it is, as you know, impossible to be two
places at the same time. But I am glad I was here for some part
of your presentation and to have the opportunity to ask you
some questions.
I am fascinated by the chart you have provided us here, the
map entitled Excessive Erosion on Crop Land, dated 1997. Is
that something that you have given us?
Mr. Lyons. Yes.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
preserving arable land
Mr. Hinchey. It is really very impressive, and truly
worrisome because we continue to lose millions and millions of
acreage of arable land in the agricultural heartland of the
country. This information shows that we have an awful lot of
work to do if we are going to reverse that trend, or at least
stop it at some point and preserve the arable land that we
have. So this is something that we need to pay more attention
to than we have in the past and even than we are paying at the
moment.
conservation security program
With regard to the budget, your request for $600 million
for a new Conservation Security Program looks very, very good.
I am speaking from a parochial point of view because I am quite
secure in the statement that this kind of program is very good
for the farmers who live in New York State and the Northeast--I
would guess Pennsylvania and other parts of the Northeast,
probably the Midwest, and I certainly hope it is true of New
Mexico as well, which I suspect it is.
Mr. Skeen. Anything is possible.
Mr. Lyons. You could be assured New Mexico is a part of it.
Mr. Hinchey. I believe it is a program that looks very good
from the point of view of farmers in New York. So I am looking
forward to seeing more programs which work directly with the
farmers to curb erosion and protect water supplies from
pesticide and other kinds of dangerous runoff. So I hope that
you are very successful in that movement.
farmland protection
You also proposed a program for farmland protection which I
think is very important. You are asking for $65 million to
reauthorize this program, which seems to me like a very small
amount of money to do the job; nevertheless, it is something
that must be done. So I just congratulate you on having that in
there.
increase conservation technical assistance
You have asked for an $86 million increase for conservation
technical assistance, which is also, I think, something that is
very important to farmers and very important to the communities
in which farmers operate.
The trouble that I see, frankly, in the budget is not in
the programs. I think these programs are very, very good. What
I have found in my experience working with your staff in New
York is that the programs are good, but you don't have the
people to carry them out adequately. NRCS, for example, lost 22
positions during the past few years in New York State. And we
understand that at least 20 full-time positions are necessary
to satisfy the current demand for technical assistance, not to
mention any increase in demand. So the programs are good, but
they are not going to be effective unless we have the people on
the ground to implement them.
I know this is all part of a plan to reinvent government,
which is good in its concept and good also in its
implementation up to a point. But I fear that in some areas we
may have gone too far. And I suppose that I would pause now to
just hear your comments on that.
Mr. Lyons. You won't hear me disagreeing, Congressman, on
that subject. We have tried to pare back and cut back, but I
think we have found that we have hurt ourselves in the impact
it has had on our delivery system. And you mentioned ceilings
and positions in New York, those are in reference to the
erosion chart. You will see that erosion is also excessive in
the Delaware River Basin and in parts of your country as well
as it affects the New York City watershed, which, as you know,
we are doing a great deal of work to try address pollutants, to
try and address water quality at the source. The fiscal year
2001 request would provide for additional ceilings and
additional personnel to try and correct that trend and get
people on the ground who could then put those conservation
tools to work and working with land owners.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, I would like it if you could tell me not
now necessarily, but how much additional funding would be
required to fill key positions in the States across the
country, because this kind of activity is very important from
the point of view of the farmers.
You mentioned the New York City watershed. The difficulties
that we are experiencing in New York are going to be
experienced by a lot of other places across the country as
population density increases in those other areas. It is
important from the point of view of agriculture to keep the
land in place, prevent it from eroding and running off, and
particularly carrying with it the agricultural inputs that are
necessary in many areas to grow productive crops. At the same
time when you prevent that runoff, you are preventing the
deterioration of important water supplies and watersheds.
In the case of New York you have a watershed that provides
water for about 10 million people. With the water supply coming
from an agricultural area, there is a real danger that the
runoff from the agricultural area is going to pollute the water
supply for 10 million people, probably in the future 15 million
people. So it is a real concern.
So I applaud you in some of the initiatives that you are
taking, but I know from experience that these programs are not
going to work unless we have people to operate them.
My time has expired, but I----
Mr. Reed. Mr. Hinchey, I would like to respond to that. In
doing so, I think I will also respond to a question Mr. Skeen
asked earlier as well as a comment Mr. Boyd made in trying to
be responsive to one of the directions we received from this
committee, and that is to develop an accountability system so
that we can provide factual information on the workload and
what the true needs are. We are to a point where we have some
pretty good data on that. I think we can provide for you real
good information about what we actually need at a minimum level
in order to maintain this great conservation infrastructure
that we have throughout the countryside, the Nation, in
partnership with conservation districts and State conservation
agencies to have people, like Mr. Boyd mentioned earlier, at
the county level working with the farmers and ranchers across
America.
Mr. Hinchey. I appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Miss Kaptur.
resources and policy to address farm-suburban-urban conservation
Miss Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was just looking at what your FTE level is, trying to get
the numbers straight in my mind as to what is additionally
needed this year. We talked about the $35 million shortfall and
how many persons that translates into for fiscal year 2000.
Perhaps you could find that information while I ask my next
question.
I was very impressed, Mr. Lyons, with your comments about
America being in the second century of conservation. And
thinking about our ecosystem, we know that the ecosystem
doesn't stop at the farm's edge. In fact, many times
agriculture itself interrupts the natural ecosystem that has
produced the bounty of the natural landscape in this country. I
will share some experiences I have had in Ohio with
constituents and others. And I guess my fundamental question to
you is in the way these programs operate. Where do you have
good examples of where USDA works at the local level in trying
to implement conservation programs that go beyond the farm's
edge?
That is really the basic question, but, for example, I was
going through an area in our community which is just
incredible. They call it an oak-hickory-beach system--it is a
B-E-A-C-H, not beech tree--but east coast beach system. When
the glaciers withdrew, they left this unusual system that
really shouldn't exist in our part of the country where we have
oak forests and we have a lot of sand and many park systems,
many wetlands that may not necessarily be on agricultural land.
And one of the questions I was asked by one of the local people
working for the Nature Conservancy is why are your regulations
so narrow? You don't allow wetlands to be designated on private
property if it isn't farmed. So we have this really holey
system where maybe the farmers protect a wetland and get a
payment, but then you have got private property next door. Then
you have got the metro parks next door to that. Then you have
Nature Conservancy. It is very interesting to take a look at
that.
And somehow our Federal programs are rather restrictive.
They don't necessarily allow a community to have an umbrella
organization that naturally pulls all these interests together
and does what is best in terms of restoring the ecosystem.
In the urban context, you, as a department, developed the
Backyard Conservation Program, which interested me because
though I represent many farmers, not too many ranchers, I live
in the urban area myself. And, of course, the urban area is a
huge impediment to the ecosystem functioning, and you have to
restore a lot of plants and water systems that have been
disrupted by the development of this past century. We have
major highways come through the most productive land in Ohio,
yet the USDA presence in the region doesn't necessarily work
with the Federal and State highway people to find a way to use
the hundreds of millions of dollars that are going to come in
to deal with traffic to also begin looking at easements and how
one purchases easements or limited access along that route in
order to protect agricultural interests.
And so what I find at the local level, we have all these
high, lofty goals at the Federal level, and they are worthy
ones, but at the local level the mechanisms for people to even
use these programs are so very weak. And Ohio didn't apply for
a dime of farmland protection money. I am embarrassed for my
State. They all of a sudden discovered maybe it is something
important. But if you were to poll in our State, just like Sam
was talking about in the Salinas Valley area, there is no more
important issue in rural Ohio than sprawl, because we have more
urban areas than any other State in the country. So we are
pressed at every single corner and place in our State, but
something isn't happening at the local level.
conservation for the entire landscape
So could you discuss a bit how perhaps you have discovered
around the country places where some of these disparate
interests can be pulled together in the interests of the
ecosystem in a more holistic manner?
Mr. Lyons. I would be glad to, Miss Kaptur. I suggest to
you in the packet of information left for you last night--and,
again, we will make sure it is available to all the members of
the subcommittee--some examples of success stories in every
State in terms of our conservation efforts.
I want to address the rural-suburban-urban connections and
systems. As you know, and we have discussed before, you know,
these systems know no boundaries. Watersheds may start in a
rural area, but they run right down to the mouth of the river,
oftentimes through metropolitan areas.
Miss Kaptur. May I say that in our community I have been
exceedingly frustrated because we are the recipient from
watersheds in Michigan and Indiana, and we are sitting in the
bowl of that, but the USDA says to us, well, we only deal with
watersheds in rural areas. Even though the urban area is
completely flooded because of what is happening with the
watershed in the rural region, there is no connection. And so
do you know the solution in our community? Our mayor of the
largest city is saying the answer to runoff, in Toledo, Ohio,
we are going to tax every urban home owner on the basis of how
much square footage is on their roof and the asphalt on their
driveway. That is the answer to runoff in our area, which is
not the answer. But what I am saying, there is discretion at
the local level.
working together on conservation issues
Mr. Lyons. Well, we are trying to build those connections.
I don't want to belabor the discussion on urban programs, but
that is one place where we can make a difference. We do a lot
of work in urban-suburban communities in trying to build
conservation connections and show that we can work throughout
that entire landscape. Part of that is educating communities to
the role they can play, while addressing the issues of
livability and sprawl; is to make where people live a pleasant
place to live, and protecting open space, reducing erosion,
restoring vegetation, and at the same time using tools like
farmland protection to try and keep those open spaces outside
the city limits as they are. So we are trying to build those
connections.
Our investment in urban areas is less than 1 percent of our
total budget, yet--of course, 80 percent of all Americans live
in those environments. I think there is a philosophical
difference that exists in the Congress on what role we should
play there.
I admit to my bias. I grew up in urban New Jersey not far
from Mr. Hinchey's district. You know, I went out in the
Catskills and the Adirondacks into rural areas to play. That is
why I developed my love for nature.
I think it is unfortunate that the residents in urban
environments can't contribute to protecting their environment,
their waters, and have a greater appreciation for the
connections to those rural landscapes.
Miss Kaptur. I want to say the way in which one organizes
to deal with this at the local level is exceedingly complex,
and many times the Federal programs don't create the incentive
for people to work together beyond the boundaries of the farm's
edge. You sent us this picture which reminds me of McQueen's
Orchards in Lucas County, probably our largest orchard. And 2
years ago the farmer and his family who helped develop this
incredible set of orchards said, Marcy, come with me. We walked
across his back lands. What is coming at him is what is on
this, and he said I am going to be overwhelmed. I want to
remain in farming. How am I going to do that here? There is
nobody to help him.
So I was very interested in the language in your submittal,
producers in conservation buffers, trying to help producers in
some way with buffers around the edge. I kept thinking, well,
maybe that is an initiative that might help a farmer like this.
Thank you.
Mr. Skeen. Mrs. Emerson.
concern about regulations
Mrs. Emerson. Mr. Lyons, I apologize. I am still a little
hung up on this volunteer business. Do you think if you asked
farmers and producers around the country if they believed the
TMDL and the AFO/CAFO programs are voluntary, do you think they
would honestly agree with you? Give me your objective opinion
about that.
Mr. Lyons. Well, I don't know how to answer that. They have
the means, they have the opportunity to deal with these issues
as they would like currently. And I think you know we certainly
provide them all the tools and the technology to do so. They
are not by anything we have done required to do anything under
TMDLs, and we have had that discussion.
Under AFO/CAFO we have tried to design a strategy to deal
with what is a public concern in a way that is going to
minimize impact on producers. It would address the larger
operations greater than 1,000 head or more as well as those who
fail to come into compliance.
You know, I think--I am saying we still have as a
foundation a voluntary system for dealing with these issues. I
think, as Miss Kaptur may note, as the orchardist who sees a
threat coming, I would suggest to you for American agriculture,
concerns about environmental quality represent a threat out
there, and I think we are trying to help producers make sure
that, you know, they can do what they want to do, stay in
production, and so in a way that is going to protect the
productivity of their land as best we can.
Mrs. Emerson. You know, I would have to say that there
isn't one producer in my area, and I have a very overwhelming
agriculture district, who doesn't understand the need to
conserve the land and take care of it. And so consequently, the
heavy-handedness of regulation is somewhat problematic because
I can tell you that even if these programs really are so
voluntary, it just kind of seems funny that all of the
``volunteers'', my producers and ranchers, oppose them. It is
kind of bizarre.
national conservation forums and summit
Let me ask you something you just mentioned earlier on in
your remarks about these five regional forums and then the
national summit on conservation. Can you provide to my office a
list not only of the invitees to all of those summits, but
actually those who were in attendance? I would appreciate
having that.
Mr. Lyons. We can do that.
small watershed program backlog
Mrs. Emerson. Let me just ask a couple of questions, if I
could, on Public Law 566, the Small Watershed Program. Could
you tell me what the backlog of unfunded projects is in the
program and what your agency is doing to complete these
projects in a reasonable time frame?
Mr. Reed. The unfunded backlog is approximately $1.4
billion. We are doing everything that we can to encourage the
funding of these projects from other sources because the level
of funding for Public Law 566 has been flat and declining for
the last 2 or 3 years.
Mrs. Emerson. Can I get you all to provide for the hearing
record a list of the backlog projects? Could we get a list of
those projects? That would be terrific.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
deauthorized small watershed projects
Mrs. Emerson. Also, let me reference something that was in
the budget summary, in your all's budget summary, that I think
is real important. On page 70 it says, ``NRCS will continue to
reduce the backlog of unfunded work by examining approved
watershed plans in order to deactivate or revise those that
have become infeasible or where local sponsor interest is no
longer strong.''
Now, I recognize you have to go back and update those
plans, but that underscores the inadequacy of funds in the
program. Can you tell me how many projects are taken off the
list in a given year under this procedure and what percentage
that is of the total number of projects on the backlog list?
Mr. Reed. I would have to provide that for you for the
record.
Mrs. Emerson. I would be very happy to get that.
[The information follows:]
WATERSHED PROJECTS MODIFIED OR DELETED DURING FY 1999-2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Project name Date Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS....... Box Creek.............. 99/08 Deauthorized.
MS....... Houlka Creek........... 99/08 Deauthorized.
MS....... Mantachie; Bogue Fala 99/08 Deauthorized.
and Bogue Eucuba.
MS....... Browns Creeks.......... 99/08 Inactive.
AR....... Cedar-Piney Creeks..... 99/08 Installation Complete.
KS....... Middle Walnut.......... 99/04 Installation Complete.
MN....... Burnham Creek.......... 99/07 Installation Complete.
NJ....... Furnace Brook.......... 99/08 Installation Complete.
VA....... Upper Appomattox River. 99/08 Installation Complete.
AR....... Caney Bayou............ 99/04 Project Life Over.
AR....... Fleschman's Bayou...... 99/04 Project Life Over.
LA....... Baker Canal............ 99/05 Project Life Over.
LA....... Cocodrie-Grand Louis... 98/12 Project Life Over.
LA....... North Tensas........... 99/05 Project Life Over.
AZ....... New Magma.............. 99/10 Supplemented.
CA....... Indian Creek........... 99/12 Supplemented.
CA....... Upper Stony Creek...... 99/12 Supplemented.
MO....... McKenzie Creek......... 99/08 Supplemented.
MS....... Tallahaga Creek........ 99/11 Supplemented.
PA....... Red-White Clay Creek... 99/02 Supplemented.
PA....... Yellow Creek........... 99/08 Supplemented.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced Funding for Small Watersheds
Mrs. Emerson. But then let me ask you with that big backlog
why you have reduced the funding for that program from 90.8
million to 74.4 million?
Mr. Lyons. Maybe I could address that. I take it you are a
supporter of Public Law 566 and the watershed program.
Mrs. Emerson. There are some things I support, yes.
Mr. Lyons. I know there is a lot you support. I was just
referring to that program. I would suggest to you, Mrs.
Emerson, that the same problem that exists with Public Law 566
and perceptions in that program is the problem that exists with
the other programs you referenced as regulatory programs.
There are some who will perceive that the Public Law 566
program is simply a construction program, and it is going to
provide for investments and watershed projects that are either
outdated and/or inappropriate and will cause environmental
harm. I want to point out that Pearlie and I don't share that
view. We see the value of many of these projects. We have not
been able to secure funding for these projects. And I think we
have an education job to do; you to help us communicate to
people that these are valuable programs, and I guess obviously
Pearlie and I to help you understand that we are not forwarding
or advocating regulatory strategies to deal with the pollution.
Mrs. Emerson. Can you tell me if the 74 million is your
number, or is that the number OMB gave you all? What did you
submit in your budget, and what were you given back by OMB?
That is a better way of putting it.
Mr. Reed. What I asked Mr. Lyons for was substantially more
than that.
Mr. Lyons. And we didn't get it.
Mrs. Emerson. But then, Mr. Lyons, can you tell me whether
you cut it, or did OMB cut it?
Mr. Lyons. I don't think I cut it.
Mrs. Emerson. Okay.
Mr. Lyons. Scout's honor.
Forest Management Plans
Mrs. Emerson. Well, I will take your word for it on this
one. But if you could give me the information, that would be
helpful.
Let me ask you, since I still actually have some time here,
even though obviously our subcommittee doesn't fund the Forest
Service, you have responsibility for that agency, and I really
can't resist asking you a question or two about it,
particularly about the proposed rule on forest management
plans, which obviously you can imagine troubles me deeply. I
think that the proposed rule takes us from a multiple use to a
single use or a no use.
And perhaps I often use the expression that some in the
administration would only like us to go meditate and not use
wise management of our natural resources, but timber sales, are
already dramatically down from 5, 10 years ago. And last year--
the appropriated level provided for a total volume offered of
just 3.62 billion board feet. Do you have an idea of or an
estimate as to what that rule's impact is going to be on timber
sales?
Mr. Lyons. I don't know if I can give you a specific
answer. I would suggest to you that our view is that the rule
is certainly not in any way an effort to walk away from the
concepts of multiple use. In fact, what the rule states is--as
proposed anyway--is that maintaining the health of the land--
use the term ecological sustainability, and actually that
termed by a committee of scientists that provided us guidance
in reviewing the law and recommending changes in the rule--
maintaining ecological sustainability is key to maintaining
social and economic sustainability. So our goal simply is that
Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act directs us to do--to maintain
a sustainable flow of the goods and services that come from the
National Forest without impairment of the productivity of the
land. That is the critical phrase.
So I don't see that as impacting the timber sale program in
any way. In fact, to the contrary, we have hopes that we can
increase the use of timbering as a civil cultural tool to
achieve multiple objectives in addition to producing timber.
Mrs. Emerson. Considering the monies that you all have
asked to appropriate is a much lower number of board feet, I
mean, I am not quite sure that that jibes, but I would ask if
you all could provide--I assume you have done an economic
impact or evaluated the economic impact on the forest products
industry and our rural communities near national forests of
lowering the volume that is going to be offered. Have you
determined how much it is going to cost our communities and the
industry by substantially decreasing the amount of board feet?
Mr. Lyons. I would suggest to you that our proposal for
2001 is not a substantial decrease from where we were in 2000.
What was appropriated by the Congress for timber sales in
fiscal year 2000, there is a slight decline. We certainly can
provide the information we have that was the analysis for
preparing that budget if you would like.
Mrs. Emerson. I would, in fact, like to do that.
[The information follows:]
Your concerns focus on two main issues: multiple use and impacts on
timber sales and community economics. The answer below addresses each
of these issues.
multiple use
Regarding the multiple use concern. I can assure you that the
proposed planning rule builds upon, and will foster, the entirety of
the agency's legal foundations that encompass the direction given in
the Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act (MUBY). Inherent in the proposed
rule's three-part goal of sustainability is the promotion of a wide
variety of uses, values, products and services through a collaborative
process that enhances society's capability to make sustainable choices
across the landscapes they care about.
The goal of ecological sustainability is consistent with the
multiple use mission of the National Forest System to develop and
administer renewable resources for multiple use and sustained yield of
the several products and services obtained. It is consistent with the
MUSY direction to provide for harmonious and coordinated management of
the various resources.
Further, if meets the NFMA requirement to provide for diversity of
plant and animal communities based on suitability and capacity of
specific land areas for meeting multiple use objectives (16 U.S.C.
1604(G)(3)(B).
Timber and economic impacts
A rule, as a regulatory document (in this case, land management
planning, has neither economic or timber impacts on any constituent
group or local community. However implementation of actions done under
that Rule may have impacts. Thus, we consider and evaluate these
potential impacts as part of the NEPA process when proposing to revise
a forest or grassland plan for proposing project-level actions More
specifically, when the currently proposed planning rule is finalized,
any proposed plan revisions or subsequent project level proposals will
be subject to full consideration of economic impacts on potentially
affected groups, including forest industries and local communities. The
CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.23) clearly define the point at which a
proposal exists for meaningfully evaluating effects.
Forest Planning Rule Comments
Mrs. Emerson. The comment--well, I ran out of time, didn't
I? I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Go ahead with your last question.
Mrs. Emerson. I know that the comment period on the
proposed rule closed on the 3rd of February. Can you give me a
general sense and where the comments are in the time line?
Mr. Lyons. I am sorry, for the proposed forest planning
rule?
Mrs. Emerson. Yes.
Mr. Lyons. We actually extended the comment period several
times. In fact, the last time we extended it 11 days to
accommodate the Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee. We received, I think, 11,000 comments
during that time frame. We are reviewing those comments and
meeting with Chief Dombeck and with the Forest Service
leadership last week to go through comments and all the
feedback we had received on the rule and have given
instructions to the rule-writing team to respond to the issues
raised, the concerns expressed by the public. Comments were
heard from congressional sources to make rewrites, in some
cases substantial rewrites, of the rule.
Mrs. Emerson. So time line?
Mr. Lyons. We hope to get it finished up later this spring.
Mrs. Emerson. For the summer sometime.
Mr. Lyons. Hopefully, yes.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Farr.
Timber Sales on Federal Land
Mr. Farr. Just a curious follow-up on Mrs. Emerson's
question. What is the total percentage of timber sales in
America that comes off Federal lands?
Mr. Lyons. I believe our supply--the quantity that we
supply right now of soft woods, I would be taking a guess right
now, it is certainly less than 10 percent.
Mr. Farr. So the rest of the 90 percent of the market is
controlled outside.
Mr. Lyons. Most timber produced in the United States comes
from private sources. A great deal actually is imported from
Canadian sources in terms of domestic use. We export as well.
Legal Liability of NRCS Operations
Mr. Farr. Of your NRCS jurisdiction, is there anything in
your services that is not voluntary? You provide technical and
financial assistance, but people have to ask them, right?
Mr. Lyons. That is correct.
Mr. Farr. So let me just suggest, the committee ought to
consider what I see happening in our area where we are in a
litigious society, and a lot of the decisions that affect
policy are made outside the legislative branch. They are made
in the judicial branch. In a tort era what is happening in
farming, if you don't learn best management practices, you are
going to be sued as the results of your less than best
management practice are going to have a downstream effect on
somebody's life and property, and they are going to go to
court.
USDA Conservation Leadership
So I want to just, first of all, compliment you because I
do think we need some leadership in this country to provide
upgrading of skills, and where I have seen it is in any area
that we have cattle ranchers now who through learning better
skills have totally changed their cattle ranching operation.
They are into what they call holistic grazing. They graze
cattle, sheep, and cows and horses together and shepherd them
from one field to another because they have open ranges. What
they are finding is that the fields are coming back. This is on
their own private land they are coming back much stronger and
much healthier, and yet they are able to also go to the market
because they are working with nature rather than against
nature, and they are learning from the technical expertise.
So I think we need to continue this, as I call it,
upgrading America's skills on land use, whether it is in our
forests or ag lands, wherever it may be, because if we don't,
the consequences are going to be that it is just going to fall
apart and can't be used for agriculture because there is just
too many problems that we can't overcome. So we got to sell it
for urban sprawl.
So farming is the best defense against urban sprawl. Look
at California, number one ag State, the number one population
State, and yet in areas like the Salinas Valley, which I hope
our committee can see sometime where our land is worth $35,000
an acre, farmers are still doing best management practices and
able to say, I would rather be in farming.
Mrs. Emerson. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Farr. Yeah.
Private Sector Conservation Leadership
Mrs. Emerson. Let me comment that my farmers and ranchers
are doing the same thing, but they are doing it voluntarily.
They are not having the heavy hand of government come down and
tell them they have to do it, because they know if they don't
do it, they will not be successful.
Farmland Protection Program Funding
Mr. Farr. We are not in disagreement, because it is all
voluntary in California, only you have many other pressures.
You have local and State laws that are so much tougher than
anything the Federal Government has ever thought of, and yet
they are making it.
The point I would like to get down to here, is your budget
request for farmland protection? I mean, we don't have any
money in that program. Miss Kaptur just talked about the fact
that people need it, we need to do it. We have $35 million. It
was authorized, and it was spent in 1998. What is the
Department going to do to send this new authorization language
up to the Hill for the $65 million in the budget request? When
are you going to do it?
Mr. Lyons. I know we are working on it, Congressman. I
think that one is fairly simple. It is simply a change in the
authorized cap. So we could get that--Steve has to clear all
these things.
Mr. Farr. Do you have $35 million authorization now, so if
this committee put $35 million into that program, you are
authorized to spend it?
Mr. Lyons. We spent the authorization, so we need an
increase in the authorization.
Mr. Farr. And then where would the money come from for the
program?
Mr. Lyons. CCC. It would be increased funding out of CCC.
Mr. Farr. You are not going to the land and water
conservation fund, I hope.
Mr. Lyons. That is not what we have proposed.
Mr. Farr. It was proposed last year. It didn't work. It was
outside our jurisdiction.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program Funding
Your request for EQIP program is $125 million above the
authorized level?
Mr. Lyons. It is about $300 million.
Mr. Farr. When are you going to ask for the authorization
language?
Mr. Dewhurst. All of these proposals will be part of the
administration's safety net program for farmers which will be
submitted. I am not in a position to give you an exact date,
but certainly within the next couple of weeks. And all the
financing for the conservation initiatives in that package
comes from the Commodity Credit Corporation.
Air Quality Task Force
Mr. Farr. Okay. Lastly, just let me--time has run out.
Mr. Reed, you served as chairperson of the Ambient Air
Quality Task Force. I understand that recently the task force
has made recommendations on two major issues of extreme
importance to agriculture. The issues are burning of
agricultural residue and a proposal to develop voluntary
incentives based on the Air Quality Compliance Program. Could
you let me know perhaps--I don't want to take the Chairman's
time--what the status of those recommendations are?
Mr. Reed. Mr. Lyons signed off this week.
Mr. Farr. Okay. Thank you. You are doing a good job on that
program. You are to be commended.
URP Heritage Rivers, and Pacific Salmon Expenditures
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Lyons, you submitted a letter for the record
that I signed on January the 28th, 1998, regarding the
expenditure of funds for Urban Resources Heritage Rivers and
salmon recovery initiatives. And I will submit for the record
the House report language that accompanied the fiscal year 1999
appropriations bill. The report language directs the agency
that the funds are not available until reprogramming requests
are approved.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Reprogramming Funds
Mr. Skeen. I would point out that the USDA has never
submitted nor did we ever approve reprogramming the use of
those funds.
Mr. Lyons. Well I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. We would
like to work with you on that. If we have to submit that, I
suppose we will. I think one of the issues of debate, and you
are the boss, was that we felt that under conservation
operations, we had the authority, which is what led to the OGC
reviews that we asked for. We want to work with you, Mr.
Chairman, on that and make sure that what we are doing comports
with what your wishes are.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you.
And Mr. Nethercutt.
CRP Technical Assistance Availability
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to the witnesses.
Last year there was testimony here regarding the financial
needs of the agency, and also there was a question about
continuing funding for technical services for producers who
were establishing CRP cover crops. I am wondering what happened
with respect to those particular funds.
Apparently during the process of establishing cover crops,
the agency suspended its service because of a shortage of
funding, and producers were caught with programs partially
completed. In many parts of the West, we have timing
requirements to make sure that, due to weather patterns, we get
our cover crops planted, and that there is going to be a
succession that the termination of service seriously
jeopardized that important phase of CRP. Congress eventually
supplied, I think it was $28 million in fiscal year 1999
emergency supplemental appropriation bill. I am wondering if
there are ample funds this year in the budget to allow the
program, the Technical Services Program, to continue.
Mr. Reed. No, sir. We have approximately $33, $35 million
shortfall.
Mr. Nethercutt. How much, sir?
Mr. Reed. About a $33 to $35 million shortfall.
Mr. Nethercutt. How do you plan to get around this very
serious problem?
Mr. Reed. We talked about that a little bit earlier. I will
defer to Mr. Dewhurst to give the same response.
Mr. Nethercutt. See if he gives the same response.
Mr. Dewhurst. We are working with OMB. You know, the
problem is the cap in the farm bill and how much money the
Commodity Credit Corporation can provide for technical
assistance. The solution to the problem not just in 2000, but
in the future lies in either eliminating or raising that cap.
The appropriation you provided was kind of a stop-gap last
year. Frankly, we would hope there was a better way to solve
the problem this year, but it is just a matter that we are
having to look at with folks across town.
Conservation Easements
Mr. Nethercutt. Well, it is a problem. And if we want to
accomplish the good things CRP has in mind, we've got to make
sure that the farmer isn't left wanting.
During the 18th sign-up of CRP, bids were accepted in some
instances in our State--in my district actually--were twice as
high as the average cash rent for croplands. We are seeing
whole farms go in to CRP, and, you know, CRP removes that land
from the rural infrastructure and the support remaining as well
as necessary for those remaining farmers. We are finding an
incentive to put whole farms into CRP at the cost and expense
of those who want to keep farming, the young guys who are out
there trying to make a living and need land to farm. I know
that this is an FSA responsibility, but I am wondering to what
extent you all are coordinating with FSA to address that very
real differential.
Mr. Reed. We really aren't from an NRCS standpoint.
Mr. Nethercutt. Should you?
Mr. Reed. We should be. And we are in a continuous dialogue
on these issues, but when it comes to those issues relative to
those programs that FSA administers and how that plays with
respect to these 25 percent limits and things like that, we
defer to them.
Mr. Nethercutt. It is real, and it does cause those young
farmers who want to continue farming--and it really makes sure
the maintenance of the infrastructure of the rural counties and
communities is there. It is a very real problem, and so I would
appreciate your thinking about it. Maybe we can further figure
out ways to address it.
Mr. Reed. I would like to add, Mr. Nethercutt, we are
having a similar kind of problem as it relates to WRP with the
tax situation and the impact that it is having on local
communities.
Resolving Clean Water and Clean Air Challenges
Mr. Nethercutt. Mr. Lyons, I know the earlier discussion--I
am informed and apologize for not being able to be here. I had
another hearing in Interior, and so I am sorry I missed your
comments, but I understand there was a focus on clean water
issues, not necessarily clean air issues. The farmer is caught
in between, especially the blue grass production industry in my
State. Blue glass production has literally been removed because
of air quality problems and challenges that have been raised.
At a time when the farmer is trying to control residue, using
burning to meet residue requirements for clean water, the
farmer is finding him or herself in the middle of clean air
versus clean water. And again, it is a challenge to try and
stay in business. I am wondering to what extent you are trying
to address these clean air and clean water challenges
simultaneously.
Mr. Lyons. Congressman, I don't know that we have done an
adequate job to try to deal with the nexus between clean air
and water. I think we have an obligation to do that for your
producers and across the country. We have some serious
challenges in your part of the world. I don't know if you had a
chance to see this map, but that red blob is your district.
Mr. Nethercutt. I know. You say that respectfully.
Mr. Lyons. I do. I do, sir, and we have talked about the
challenges. I think we have a joint obligation to help
producers stay in business, and erosion is not just an erosion
of land for your producers, it is an erosion of profits, and
therefore it is critically important we figure out ways to do
that. We are trying to do that.
Mr. Nethercutt. It is a State issue relative to the air
quality and blue grass, but Federal by the EPA, I believe. We
are seeing all the blue grass production now go over to Idaho,
which then as--we look at the wind patterns, a lot of that
smoke comes back into eastern Washington, and the people get
upset. In the meantime we have lost a lot of blue grass
producers, and that has had a negative impact on our economic
structure in eastern Washington. So, it is a tough job, but, it
sure needs some coordination and some common sense with the
respect to the ability to burn crop residue.
Mr. Lyons. We will try and do a better job with it.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Boyd.
Voluntary and Mandatory Programs
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to follow up
on an issue that Mr. Farr addressed. I think he asked Mr. Reed
the question about the administration of programs, voluntary as
opposed to mandatory. But it is my understanding that there are
some mandatory programs. I know it is mandatory that if you are
going to farm, that you have a conservation plan in place that
you have to follow and implement. And I want to make sure that
our record didn't reflect that you only administer voluntary
programs.
Mr. Reed. There are compliance requirements.
Mr. Boyd. We have addressed that earlier. There are
compliance requirements.
Mr. Lyons. But, Mr. Boyd, don't lose sight of the fact that
if a producer elects to be part of the program----
Mr. Boyd. I understand that. If you are going to farm, you
must comply.
Mr. Lyons. If you are going to farm in the programs.
Mr. Boyd. I say, again, if you are going to farm, you must
comply because you won't farm long if you don't farm in the
programs, at least not in my part of the world.
We have had a discussion here today about the technical
assistance plus-ups that you want, and we have had an extensive
discussion about the lack of adequate personnel, resources,
training, those kinds of things at the county level, and that
is working against us. Everybody has, I think, here has beat
that around a little bit.
Conservation Security Program Request
My first reaction when I see the budget request for new
programs, and I refer to the Conservation Security Program, is,
you know, we can't even administer and implement the ones that
we have in place now. So my first reaction is why do we want to
further use our resources in trying to implement a program
which in this case is probably duplicating? I think we got
plenty of programs in place. So that is my first gut reaction
based on your summary of the program.
I would like to ask Mr. Reed or Mr. Lyons, or some of your
folks to come in and talk to us about the details of this new
program and how are we going to mesh it in with the whole farm
security net issue. And I don't want to take up the committee's
time now because I have another area that I want to go into,
but I would like to have that if we could do that.
Mr. Lyons. We submit to do that, Mr. Boyd, I want to say
one thing. That is we did meet with staff yesterday and
discussed the fact that we intend to put some proposals
together, but we want to sit down with you. We know we have a
short legislative year. We want to sit down and work these
things through. I think Secretary Glickman met with a number of
members with the Agriculture Committee yesterday and discussed
some efforts.
Stopping Farmland Conversion
Mr. Boyd. In that vein, I know you handed out some charts
earlier. You referred to them, one earlier which doesn't give
us a benchmark to go against, but the others do. One is a total
erosion of cropland, and you see between 1982 and 1995 you
refer to the fact that probably the major cause of this
significant decrease in cropland use is the CRP program, which
I concur with and I am a great advocate of.
I would submit to you and to the other Members that the
real problem is what Miss Kaptur referred to earlier, and that
is acreage or farmland conversion to development. And I would
submit to you that maybe our major focus should be figuring out
how to stop that. And I know Mr. Farr and others have referred
to the Farmland Protection Program, which I know the States are
doing much in areas into conservation, development rights and
those kind of things.
Now, I want to ask your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, and the
indulgence of the committee to go back and address the forest
issue, because this is the only opportunity we have to address
Mr. Lyons in this setting. And I know it is not our area of
purview, but I would ask your indulgence to do that.
Mr. Skeen. We are indulged.
National Forest System Payments to States and Counties
Mr. Boyd. Mr. Lyons, are you familiar with H.R. 2389?
Mr. Lyons. If you tell me the title of it, I bet I am.
Mr. Boyd. It is the Secure Rural Schools & Communities,
Self Determination Act.
Mr. Lyons. Yes, very much, sir.
Mr. Boyd. We had a great discussion and debate about that
last year. Now, I heard today that some people in your
Department have gone to the Senate and said they want to sit
down and write a bill in the Senate. Now, Mr. Lyons, we had a
discussion earlier about forest policies, management practices,
and you know what we tried to do with H.R. 2389 is set those
controversial issues aside. We are not going to resolve those
here. Those are in court, many of them being decided in the
judicial system, based on interpretation of current law, and
that is an issue that will not be resolved immediately.
But there is a consequence to the changed timber management
practices, and that is that our local schools in these forest
communities, are being devastated. And what we tried to do when
we wrote H.R. 2389 was to solve that specific problem, not
solve the issue or the debate about harvest management
policies, but simply our goal was to set that aside and solve
the issue of school funding.
Now, Mr. Lyons, I attempted on several occasions to have
discussions with your staff and get your constructive input so
we could come to an agreement. But, unfortunately, the
administration continues to oppose this piece of legislation
which simply tries to address the school functioning issue. It
doesn't address management practices at all. I don't understand
why the administration continues to oppose solving the problem
in funding our local school districts. In the communities where
the government owns the land and has taken it off the tax
roles, they have destroyed the economic base because of their
timber management practice changes. So I hope you will address
that.
Mr. Lyons. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to.
You are right, Congressman. We continue to oppose the House-
passed bill. We are engaged in a discussion with the Senate
staff. Senator Wyden, Senator Craig requested that we begin
that dialogue. We are working on the language there. I think it
is important to importantly characterize the bill there because
it doesn't simply deal with school funding. We were pleased to
deal with that issue, and I made that commitment many times
before.
Your bill does a little bit more than that, though. It
creates a very complicated structure that would introduce a new
concept, and that is it will require the communities to commit
20 percent of the funds they get under that bill to developing
community-based and driven projects on the ground. It would
create an imbalance in the committees, would provide guidance
to that. And furthermore, it provides no mechanism to fund this
program. We have a tremendous fear that that will then result
in appropriations being taken away from the Forest Service to
implement the basic programs we need to implement.
We remain committed to try and address the school funding
issue. I agree completely this should not be about forest
policy, it should be about education in rural communities. So
we are working with Senators Wyden and Craig at their request
to try and work through our differences over the legislation,
see if we can't come up with something that the administration
can support. I agree completely with you about the need to come
up with a reliable, sustainable and certain source of funding
to deal with rural education needs which have been impacted by
changes in Federal forest policy, reduced revenues to those
communities. We do need to address that. We are anxious to
figure out a way to do that.
Mr. Boyd. Mr. Lyons, first of all, Mr. Chairman, if I might
conclude this--number one, the mechanism to fund, as you know
we changed the language in the House at your request because
you opposed the old language. And so that made it such that we
had to find the funding, and we are asking the administration
to help us identify potential sources. I personally had a
discussion with the Vice President about that, and he agreed at
the time we had a discussion to help.
Mr. Lyons. We do want to do that, sir.
Mr. Boyd. The other is you opposed the community project
language. Earlier today in a statement you made, you said, I
will paraphrase, ``the way to solve problems is not getting in
the face of those who happen to have a different view and those
you have to work with.'' And the community project is designed
to do just what you described earlier in your answer, and that
is to have people who have opposing views about management
practices to come together to decide how to resolve, or what
projects those would be.
Now, it doesn't take away any authority of yours. Every
regulation, policy rule and law of the Forest Service still has
to be followed. And for the life of me I don't understand why
you oppose this legislation on that basis, because it doesn't
undermine the authority you have under existing law. It simply
puts people who are on opposite sides of this fence for a long
time in the same room and requires them to agree before
anything is done, and I think that is good policy and will move
us a giant step forward in helping resolve this whole timber
management practice issue. So I hope you would rethink that.
Mr. Lyons. Well, it is appropriate for you to have the last
word, Congressman, so I will leave it at that. So I look
forward to sitting down and talking with you over the
differences we still have over the bill.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Latham.
voluntary preservation of farmland
Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A lot of this discussion about, you know farmers, Mrs.
Emerson brought up about what farmers are doing as far as soil
conservation, and just as a statement I personally take offense
to anyone who implies that farmers voluntarily are not going to
do everything they can to preserve what is their number one
asset, their land, and I will--as someone who lives on a farm
myself and who drinks out of a well, that my family, my kids--
the idea that somehow farmers are not the number one front line
people as far as soil conservation is concerned, as far as a
clean environment is concerned is very offensive to me.
federal regulations for agriculture
And I will tell you also the biggest threat, we talked
about it last year, to our water supply in upper Iowa, in the
aquifer, is four Federal agencies today. Somehow people think
in agriculture you are only regulated by USDA, I mean, which is
insane if you have to deal with EPA, with Fish and Wildlife,
with the Army Corps of Engineers, plus EPA to try and fix a
problem which is going to have a tremendous negative impact on
water quality in that aquifer, because four Federal agencies
can't agree on anything. And just the idea that somehow--I wish
we could just deal with you. But, I mean, there is a feeling
somehow in urban areas that the only thing farmers have to deal
with is just the USDA, which is--if you come to my district, I
will show you how totally outrageous that is. And it is one
reason why we are extraordinarily sensitive to EPA coming in
and getting additional authority in our area, because they
can't manage what they are doing now in a logical, commonsense
way.
And I guess that is the point I think needs to be made. I
think maybe some of our urban friends--that we are not out here
trying to be the big polluter. We are trying to fix the
problem. We can't do it because of four Federal agencies that
won't talk to each other, all claiming jurisdiction. I am
sorry, but it really is frustrating.
other budget proposals
And my question goes somewhat in the same vein. In your
testimony there is this livability initiative and the budget
proposals to provide $5 million for a community Federal
information partnership and $5 million to help farmers plan and
develop and implement biomass systems. If you could describe a
little bit more about this initiative, and also what is your
agency's role as far as biomass?
And also I would really like to have you comment, too. We
have this huge--I was out in Seattle, and the issue of the
genetically-modified organisms--which anyone who looks at it
from an environmental point of view should believe that using
less fertilizer, using less chemicals, having much less
opportunity even for spills or for runoff, buffer zones,
filtration, which everyone wants to have, but if you are using
less chemicals and fertilizers because of these products, I
mean, to me it makes sense that the environmental community
should be 100 percent behind these things. I question why they
are not.
But I have asked about four questions there. If you would
respond.
Mr. Reed. Jim, do you want me to do this one?
Mr. Latham. Come on, Pearlie. Come on, buddy.
biomass products initiative
Mr. Reed. Okay. On the biomass activity, it is primarily to
fund about 11--the equivalent of 11 FTE to help with the USDA's
part of carrying out the President's executive order dealing
with this particular issue as it relates to a lot of other
things. The details on it I can't give you, but I could provide
that for the record.
[The information follows:]
Biomass
The biomass initiative is based on the President's
Executive Order 13134 concerning developing biobased energy and
other products. It seeks to achieve greater use of renewable
resources and reduce dependency on imported and domestic energy
sources like oil or fossil fuels. The President's budget
requests $5,000,000 for NRCS to fund 11 staff years of
assistance during FY 2001 and provide funds for competitive
grants. NRCS has stressed two priorities: (1) expansion of
feedstock production for biobased products or bioenergy should
occur commensurate with protection of natural resource values;
and (2) local communities should be key for organizing biobased
energy projects and enterprises that are environmentally,
economically, and socially sustainable.
With this funding, NRCS would use $1,000,000 to develop
technical standards and provide training to field staffs so
that they can provide direct technical assistance to producers
and local communities interested in biomass enterprises. The
remaining $4,000,000 would be used to provide competitive
start-up grants for community projects on biomass energy.
community/federal information partnership
Mr. Latham. So you didn't ask for this funding?
Mr. Reed. No, I didn't.
Mr. Latham. You are a great American.
Mr. Reed. But that doesn't mean I don't support it.
Mr. Latham. I know. In your position you probably have to.
Mr. Lyons. You see why Pearlie is Chief.
Mr. Reed. On the community, slash, Federal information
partnership, of course that would be funds made available for
the NRCS to participate appropriately along with all the other
USDA agencies in some of this Federal geographical data
committee-type activities. And this is another one that did not
come from the bottom up, but it is something that we certainly
should do and is needed in order for us to be a part of the
larger community and pick up the efficiencies that are needed
dealing with this particular issue. And those were the two that
I picked up.
But you said you asked four questions.
using sound science to assess agriculture changes
Mr. Latham. Well, about the--I guess I question, you know,
your agency's role as far as biomass. And does the Department
have a position as far as GMOs and how positive it would be for
the environment or negative?
Mr. Lyons. Mr. Latham, all I can tell you on that subject
is that the Secretary has spoken a number of times on the issue
of GMOs.
Mr. Latham. If I could, as it relates to the initiatives as
far as your jurisdiction.
Mr. Lyons. I don't know that we have made any formal
statement in that regard. I would share this is another area
where perceptions contrary to scientific fact seem to be
driving the debate. I mean, you are aware of the Frito-Lay
decision with regard to corn, genetically modified corn, I
think, which baffled many in the industry and many in the
agriculture community. But it seems to be one of those
decisions that is driven by public perceptions or concerns
about the impacts on their ability to market genetically-
modified products. The science doesn't support the health risk
concerns that apparently are there.
In fact, what we can do with regard to reducing
environmental inputs, nutrients, pesticides, et cetera, would
seem to me to make a solid argument for the utility of this
technology. But nevertheless, there is this huge public issue
that has to be dealt with. I know the Secretary is trying to
capitalize on opportunities to get that debate out in the
public forum so we can have an honest discussion about what we
know is scientifically sound and the technology that is
available and how we deal these.
Mr. Latham. I would just apologize, Mr. Chairman, just for
one statement. I guess I think you could play a key role by
using sound science to take a position, a positive or negative.
But I think there is a huge environmental impact here, and I
think a case could be made that this, maybe, is one of the most
positive things. We are talking about maybe not using any
pesticides. We are talking about limiting use of fertilizer to
fractions of what current level usage is. I mean, I would think
you would have a position somewhere.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you.
Mr. Hinchey.
long range view of agriculture and the environment
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to say that I think it is obviously very
important with regard to this particular subject to take the
longest-range point of view. I know that that is what you seek
to do in your responsibilities, and by so doing, you are
providing a great service to the country. The protection and
preservation of these natural resources and the use of them in
the most appropriate way is invaluable, not so much to us,
perhaps, as it will be to future generations. That is the most
important thing that we have to keep our eye on here. I want to
congratulate you for the efforts that you are taking in that
regard.
Also, with regard to the efforts that you are proposing in
this budget to rationalize conflicts between agriculture and
the environment, I know that is an ongoing thing, and it is an
issue that I think is very important. I see it in a very
practical way with regard to the New York City watershed that I
was talking about before. I would just ask you if you would,
not necessarily this moment, but at some point have a
discussion with us with regard to the environmental quality
incentives and the conservation reserve as well as the new
Conservation Security Program and ways in which they can be
used specifically to deal with the issue of agriculture in a
watershed. I would be very grateful to you for that.
staff needed for program implementation
At the risk of being unnecessarily repetitive, let me just
underline once more the problem that I see with regard to the
implementation of these programs, given a shortage of staff. It
is a very practical problem that the services just cannot get
out to the needed recipients unless you have the human beings
to deliver them. No matter how you cut it, there is no way to
get around that. I know this is something you know, but I think
it has to be said from this side of the table as well. So I
want to express that to you and thank you very much for your
efforts.
Mr. Lyons. Appreciate that very much, Congressman.
Mr. Reed. Thank you.
timber supply correction
Mr. Lyons. Mr. Chairman, if I could correct the record. I
did get--one thing I just wanted to answer the question on
timber supply that was raised to me earlier. The national
forests contribute 5 percent of the total national demand for
wood in the United States. Of that, 5 percent comes from
roadless areas. So we contribute 5 percent to the total wood
basket of the United States; 5 percent of what we produce comes
from roadless areas.
Mr. Skeen. You have done a very good job. Thank you very
much for your patience and the answers.
Mr. Farr. Great job, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you. Thank you all for being here. We have
worn out a whole bunch of the day, but I think we have done a
good job, and the pertinent information is there. We wish you
the very best. Come by and see us once in a while.
Mr. Lyons. Will do.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you all. We are adjourned.
[The following questions were submitted to be answered for
the record:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 15, 2000.
MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS
WITNESSES
MICHAEL V. DUNN, UNDER SECRETARY, MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS
CRAIG A. REED, ADMINISTRATOR, ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION
SERVICE
KATHLEEN MERRIGAN, ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE,
ACCOMPANIED BY KEN CLAYTON, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
JAMES R. BAKER, ADMINISTRATOR, GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS
ADMINISTRATION
DENNIS KAPLAN, BUDGET OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Opening Remarks
Mr. Skeen. The committee will come to order and we will go
on the record.
Today we have with us Mike Dunn, the Under Secretary for
Marketing and Regulatory Programs. Mr. Dunn is responsible for
the Agricultural Marketing Service, the Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Administration and the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service. That is a pretty good plateful. Mr.
Dunn's team has one new member who has not been before this
subcommittee, and that is Ms. Kathleen Merrigan, who was
appointed Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service
last year. We welcome her here today.
Glad to have you here.
Ms. Merrigan. Thank you.
Mr. Skeen. The Under Secretary and his Administrators
manage a wide range of issues very important to the committee.
This is a busy day with a lot of subcommittee hearings. I ask
for cooperation from everyone so that Members can make maximum
use of their time while we are here.
Before I ask Mr. Dunn for his statement, I would ask the
distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio, Miss Kaptur, if she has
any opening remarks.
Miss Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I
apologize for being late. There were three things going on at
once, including a competing subcommittee hearing. Someday when
I become Chair of Appropriations, 50 years from now, I am going
to computerize all meetings. So that they don't occur at the
same time.
Mr. Skeen. No apology necessary. We appreciate your time.
Miss Kaptur. I want to welcome the Under Secretary and all
of those very capable individuals that have come over this
morning from USDA.
I just wanted to say that the world is a brighter place
today, Mr. Chairman, because the staff director of this
committee, Hank Moore is a new grandfather. We congratulate him
and his family. His first grandchild. I think we ought to give
that family some applause.
Mr. Skeen. Just wait till you get a houseful of them.
Mr. Dunn, we will recognize you for your statement.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I am indeed pleased to be here before you today to
discuss the activities of the Marketing and Regulatory
Programs. I have with me, besides the folks here at the table,
Dr. Enrique Figueroa, who is Deputy Under Secretary for
Marketing and Regulatory Programs, in the audience; Mr. Jim
Baker, who is the Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards; Dr. Craig Reed, who is the Administrator of Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Services.
You have already introduced Ms. Kathleen Merrigan, who is
the new Administrator for the Agricultural Marketing Service.
Then we have Dennis Kaplan with OBPA, who is here with us to
round out the members at the table.
Mr. Chairman, I hope we are able to present our prepared
statements for both myself and the administrators as part of
the record.
Mr. Skeen. Yes, we will do that.
Mr. Dunn. I would like to give the committee an overview of
what we are facing in the programs today and the current
situation in agriculture as we see it. Certainly agriculture,
the agricultural economy, is in a state of change.
Concentration and consolidation is taking place in an
unprecedented amount. That has increased the demand for
marketing regulatory programs to have more oversight to ensure
a level playing field for producers. It has increased the
demand for more information that is transparent in price
reporting. It has increased the demand for more knowledge about
how large entities operate vis-a-vis small producers and
family-size operators.
Methods of sales are changing very rapidly, moving away
from the spot market towards contracting and vertical
integrations. There are more alliances; more cooperatives and
direct marketing alternatives are being explored by producers.
New markets, such as organic and sustainable, are niches that
we see for family farm operations to get into to remain viable.
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) have raised concerns
by consumers, environmentalists and by our foreign trade
partners, which has had an effect on producers, handlers and
processors. There is concern over our regulatory regime and how
we regulate GMOs. There is demand for identity preserved and
segregation of product in shipment. There is demand for
validation of those who are certifying the content of a
shipment to be either GMO or GMO-free.
Increased international trade and travel have also
increased the demands on marketing and regulatory programs.
Greater requirements for international information on price-
setting of common standards have been requested.
The WTO and NAFTA have increased the need to provide
technical knowledge transfer and foreign capacity building to
convince our trading partners that our marketing and regulatory
standards are an efficient and effective means of assuring the
quality and quantity of delivered products, and that the animal
and plant health of our trading partners are assured.
Over 80 million passengers visited us last year. The volume
of trade coming into this country is doubling every 6 years.
This volume is producing a tremendous strain on our ability to
protect our animal and plant resources.
On the plant side, in 1998, we detected 250 new plant pest
infestations, and in 1999 that grew to 334 new finds, an
increase of 84 in just 1 year. On the animal side, the National
Veterinary Service Lab received and tested over 37,000
diagnostic submissions. They helped us to confirm the presence
of West Nile virus. They assured us that Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy and Classic Swine Fever was not yet on our
shores. However, recent disturbing finds, such as horses being
shipped into the United States that have been infested with
screwworm, reminds us that we are only one slip-up away from
having a disaster on the animal side. Outbreaks of Citrus
Canker, Plum Pox Virus and Pierce's Disease are costly
testimony to our need for early detection and new efficient and
effective tools to protect our agricultural economy from such
threats.
Ongoing eradication and prevention programs are striking
successes, and they prove that we can reverse infestations when
we demonstrate that we have the resolve to do so. However, the
100 million acres lost to invasive species, which is increasing
at an alarming rate of 3 million acres a year, cry out for us
to do more.
Citizens are very concerned about the administration of the
Animal Welfare Act and the Horse Protection Act and this has
been on the rise, a concern of citizens. Not a day goes by that
I don't receive information in my office about alleged
violations of the Act, stories of mistreatment, maiming and
death of exhibit animals are all too frequent headlines in the
nightly news and in the newspapers. And when an animal causes a
human death, sometimes an unsuspecting spectator, I receive
volumes of correspondence asking who's in charge and how could
this happen.
The animal care unit of APHIS has done a tremendous job of
reinvention, and in doing more with less by targeting resources
at worst offenders. I have received thousands of congratulatory
letters on their successes, but it is now time for us to catch
up and provide the fiscal and human resources they need to do
the job that I demand and that you have legislated them to do.
To address these problems, Mr. Chairman, Marketing and
Regulatory activities are funded both by taxpayers and
beneficiaries of program services.
2001 budget request
On the appropriations side, APHIS is requesting $512
million for salaries and expenses, $5 million for building and
facilities; Agricultural Marketing Service is requesting $92
million for salaries and expenses, and Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards is requesting $33.5 million for salaries
and expenses. Authorizing legislation was submitted in the
first session of the 106th Congress that if it was enacted
would recover $30 million more in user fees for fiscal 2001.
GIPSA's budget request for 2001 is $33.5 million, salaries and
expenses, and $42.6 million to be spent from industry user fees
in our revolving fund for Grain Inspection. The appropriated
request for Packers and Stockyards is $19.3 million, an
increase of $4 million. This includes $1.2 million to develop
models which could be used to verify the existence of
anticompetitive behavior, $1.3 million to expand the rapid
response teams, $800,000 to examine the competitive structure
of the poultry industry and $400,000 to establish a swine
contract library to implement the Livestock Mandatory Reporting
Act.
The request for Grain Inspection is $14.2 million, an
increase of $2.1 million. Nearly $2 million requested for
developing new biotechnology testing methods, analytical tests
and greater quality assurance procedures in grain. This will
enable the agency to begin the process of addressing the
changes occurring due to biotechnology. Grain Inspection also
requests $150,000 be used to address the emerging sanitary and
phytosanitary standards required under the WTO and NAFTA.
A request of $100,000 to enhance GIPSA's civil rights
commitment and a request of $350,000 for an information staff
to improve communications with the livestock, meat, poultry and
grain industries is included. Legislation has been proposed
that, if enacted, would authorize the collection of $23.1
million in new license fees for administering the Packers and
Stockyards programs and increasing Grain Inspection user fees
to cover the cost of maintaining grain standards.
APHIS proposes $512 million for salaries and expenses, a
$74.3 million increase above the fiscal year 2000 estimate.
This large increase for 2001 largely reflects the decision to
fund through appropriations several emergency programs that
have been started with funds transferred from the Commodity
Credit Corporation. There is also an increase of $8.8 million
for the new Invasive Species Initiative. A $3.9 million
increase for the AQI appropriated program would lower the
threat of exotic agricultural pests and diseases entering the
United States.
A $2 million increase for the international programs would
help USDA officials and trading partners resolve pest and
disease problems and sanitary/phytosanitary-related issues.
Our second line of defense is animal and plant monitoring
whose ongoing emergency programs will identify small outbreaks
before they have a chance to become major infestations. An
increase of $9.3 million would provide a strong foundation for
these efforts in monitoring plant and animal health. $5.2
million of the increase would allow APHIS to address several
vulnerable areas in the emergency management program and will
enable us to improve our response to animal disease threats.
Emerging plant pests remain a significant management issue
for APHIS. An increase of $25 million would provide $20.5
million for an ongoing Citrus Canker eradication program in
Florida and $4.6 million to ongoing Asian Long-Horned Beetle
programs in Illinois and New York.
The Animal Welfare budget request is seeking $15.2 million,
an increase of $5 million over the fiscal 2000 level. These
funds would maintain the current activities, increase the
number of inspections and improve follow-up to verify
corrections of violations found during these inspections.
$5 million is proposed for general maintenance to the
support and modernization of Plum Island Animal Disease Center
facilities for 2001. In addition, APHIS is in collaboration
with Ag Research Service in requesting $9 million to begin the
modernization of the National Veterinary Service Lab in Ames,
Iowa.
The Agricultural Marketing Service budget includes an
increase of $18 million. A total of $92 million is requested
and appropriated in Section 32 funding to support a number of
activities that support our strategic goals. Additional
fundings would be used to continue the Mandatory Price
Reporting for livestock program begun in 2000. That request is
for $5.9 million. We would ask $400,000 to expand voluntary
market news reporting to include more data on international
markets.
To implement the National Organic Standards program, we are
requesting $703,000 for start-up costs, $600,000 to expand the
market news program to include organic news, and $1 million in
research on the impact that market orders have on organic
producers.
To expand the data collection capacity of the Pesticide
Data Program to accurately reflect the level of pesticide
residue in drinking water, we are requesting an additional $1.1
million.
To conduct microbiological testing in fruits and
vegetables, to support the Food Safety Initiative, we are
requesting $6.2 million.
To develop small farm, export and sustainable agriculture
activities that will assist small farmers to increase their
marketing opportunities, $300,000 is requested for an increase
in the Federal and State Marketing and Improvement Program.
And to improve the information system to support commodity
purchase programs, we are requesting $1 million.
Mr. Chairman, that highlights the additional requests that
we have in our budget. I and the administrators are willing to
accept any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement and biographies of Michael V. Dunn,
Dr. Craig A. Reed, Kathleen Merrigan, James R. Baker, Enrique
E. Figueroa, and Kenneth C. Clayton follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
user fee legislation
Mr. Skeen. Thank you, Mr. Dunn. Let's start the
questioning.
If you would, in your testimony, you urge Congress to enact
the proposed user fee legislation. Has that legislation been
submitted yet?
Mr. Dunn. I would defer to Mr. Kaplan on that.
Mr. Kaplan. The legislation was actually submitted last
year. It is the same legislation. So it is up here on the Hill.
Mr. Skeen. No retread?
Mr. Kaplan. No retread, no, sir.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you.
asian long-horned beetle
Mr. Dunn, the administration has made a strong case for
increased trade with China. You mentioned in your testimony the
situation with the Asian Long-Horned Beetle which came into the
United States in wooden packing crates from China. This insect
is costing Federal and local government millions of dollars in
damage to trees in New York and Illinois.
Are the Chinese doing all they can to eliminate this
problem? What is the status?
Mr. Dunn. Mr. Chairman, I am very, very pleased to report
that China has been a model trade partner in this instance on
Asian Long-Horned Beetle and packing crates. We went to them
with our emergency program when we introduced it because of the
infestation that we were getting from the packing crates.
They have exceeded 97 percent in compliance with what we
have asked them to do. That is remarkable that they were able
to mobilize and to be able to be so responsive to our
regulations in such a short time.
screwworm
Mr. Skeen. That is very interesting. You mentioned, too,
the reinfestation with Screwworm.
Mr. Dunn. Mr. Chairman, I am very sad to report that just
recently, within the last month, we have had a number of finds
of Screwworm in horses that are being brought into the United
States. At our center in Miami we have found that a number of
the horses have been infested with Screwworms. Unfortunately,
one shipment had gone out. We are in the process of doing
trace-back on that to ensure that there has been no
infestation.
We are gearing up to ensure that if we have to, we would be
able to release sterile flies in the United States if we found
the need to do so. But it illustrates, Mr. Chairman, the need
to finish up our program and to talk with South America about
them beginning, initiating a program for eradication of
Screwworm as well.
Mr. Skeen. I was around the headquarters in Texas when we
started that program. It was tremendously successful. We used
to spend most of our time in the summertime clearing up
Screwworm problems. Surely we don't want to see it start in
again. We are trying to move the laboratory down to Panama, so
they can control it in both Hemispheres. I have great interest
in keeping that exercise going for us, because it has been very
well done.
I was surprised that we had some infestation coming across
the border on horses.
Mr. Dunn. It demonstrates, Mr. Chairman, that we have to
keep our vigilance up, that we need to find a way to finance
that facility in Panama as well.
Mr. Skeen. We are working on it.
Mr. Dunn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Skeen. Miss Kaptur.
Miss Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
international trade
Mr. Dunn, in your excellent testimony, you talked about the
rising level of imports into our country and you used, what was
the figure you used, every 6 years the volume doubles coming
in?
Mr. Dunn. Every 6 years, the volume of what we inspect
doubles.
Miss Kaptur. You are talking about agricultural imports?
Mr. Dunn. This would be all imports that are coming in that
our inspectors handle--the shipments that come into our
airports and our seaports, that volume is doubling every 6
years. We are supposed to inspect everything.
Miss Kaptur. What percent do we actually inspect?
Mr. Dunn. Our goal is to inspect 2 percent. Unfortunately,
we fall short of that.
What we are in the process of doing is conducting an
individual risk assessment of each port to determine what the
pathways are in that port and where pest and disease may be
coming in. Instead of treating them as ``one size fits all,''
we are trying to target our resources at those particular
ports. It is something that the Secretary and I have talked at
great length about in recent times, and he has a great deal of
concern about this, as do I.
exotic pests and diseases
Miss Kaptur. What is the total amount that the Asian Long-
Horned Beetle has now cost the people of this country, counting
the funds that are in your budget, the funds that the State of
New York and the cities of New York and Chicago, et cetera--I
am interested in looking at that.
I am looking at Citrus Canker. You are asking for an
increase in the budget you submitted to us. What we tend to do
is we look at this in terms of individual outbreaks, problems.
Can you provide for the record the total cost to the people of
the United States for all of these various invasive species
that are coming in here and pests that are coming in on
imported products or animals?
I have never seen that figure submitted by anybody at USDA.
Are you able to put that together for us?
Mr. Dunn. We will do that for the record, Miss Kaptur. I
could not do it from the hip here.
Miss Kaptur. Right. You have some numbers there perhaps on
the cost of the Asian Long-Horned Beetle increasing?
Mr. Dunn. The amount that we have put in, Federal side, is
$7.3 million in fiscal 1999 and $13.6 million for fiscal 2000.
Miss Kaptur. So it is rising?
Mr. Dunn. Yes, ma'am.
Miss Kaptur. What is happening with Citrus Canker? Has that
not also been rising as I recall? That wasn't even in the
budget a couple of years ago. Now we have that problem.
Your budget this year proposes over $20 million, $20 to $30
million?
Mr. Dunn. Yes, Miss Kaptur. We are requesting $20 million
in Citrus Canker. Two years ago, the Director of Agriculture
for Florida, Bob Crawford, and I sat down with the industry to
try to get our arms around the problem of Citrus Canker. We
asked our staffs to put together a multiyear plan to address
this particular problem that we had. They came up with a
multiyear plan to address Citrus Canker problem.
What we found is that that plan was not adequate, that we
didn't have enough buffer zone around trees that were actually
infected, and it has been exacerbated by hurricanes and other
weather-related situations.
So what has happened is, the State of Florida has come back
to us and asked that we join them in doing a single year, all-
out attack on Citrus Canker to try to eradicate this. This
unfortunately is a situation where we simply--the only tool we
have in our tool box to address this is to remove the trees.
This is very, very costly. Our proposal for just simply
eradication and surveying, operating that program is $175
million for completion. We have already spent about $44 million
on the eradication program.
Miss Kaptur. This counts both State and Federal money?
Mr. Dunn. Yes, ma'am, that would be both State and Federal.
Miss Kaptur. That is significant money. I know Congressman
Boyd has been a leader on this subcommittee in trying to
address that situation. I have very little time in this first
round, or any round, but I wanted to just really urge you for
the record, step back from any one infestation, one can list
them. I would like to know as these imports double every 6
years, if those are the correct numbers, what this is costing
us inside our economy to correct the mistakes, to correct the
problems, and we haven't even talked about some of the other
costs that I am sure are hidden in your various budgets for
various outbreaks that we are experiencing.
I would really like to know what the cost, Federal cost, is
for international trade in your budget. You probably can't
speak to some of the other agencies, and I know it is growing
and I don't want to get off into some sidetrack on just one
infestation. I would like you to provide us with a summary of
that.
Mr. Dunn. We certainly wouldn't hide anything in our
budget. I will get you that.
[The information follows:]
APHIS spent $42.1 million to combat emergency outbreaks of
various invasive species in FY 1999, as follows (dollars in
thousands):
Pest/Disease: Amount Spent
Asian gypsy moth.............................................. $128
Asian long horned beetle...................................... 5,104
Brown tree snake.............................................. 265
Citrus canker................................................. 19,710
Classical swine fever......................................... 982
European gypsy moth........................................... 490
Karnal bunt................................................... 2,433
Medfly........................................................ 12,425
Olive fruit fly............................................... 429
Pink hibiscus mealybug........................................ 137
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, FY 1999.......................................... 42,103
invasive species
Mr. Dunn. There is an economist that has projected what
invasive species cost the United States, and it is somewhere in
the neighborhood of $123 billion annually. I will get that
report and send it to you, because that would include forest
and streams and everything else over and above what we do in
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
Miss Kaptur. I know my time is up. Mr. Chairman, I would
also ask the Under Secretary if he would be able in his reply
to my question to also suggest other mechanisms that we might
have available legally to place some of this cost on those who
have actually created the difficulty, and how one might go
about doing that--not only in this subcommittee, perhaps in
other places in this Congress. But it seems to me that the
importer has a lot of responsibility here, and I am very
interested in looking upstream, how this actually got here and
how we might move some of these costs to the perpetrators.
Mr. Dunn. There is legislation in front of Congress, the
Plant Protection Act, which would increase the fines for us on
folks that we find that have smuggled in or brought in
purposely products that pose a threat to us. I think that is
one of the steps that we ought to take. But we will get you
that additional information.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Miss Kaptur. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Nethercutt.
trade with china
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to you
all.
Mr. Secretary, we now know that China is willing to buy
about 50,000 metric tons of U.S. wheat, about 30,000 metric
tons from my district, soft white wheat from eastern
Washington. You and I have had conversations before about the
T.C.K. Smut issue. We are delighted that this barrier, that I
think is clearly a nontariff barrier, really a pretext by China
not buying our wheat is perhaps behind us.
Do you attribute that breakthrough to China's desire to be
in the WTO and get permanent normal trading relations, or do
you attribute it to the activity that your agency has
undertaken to try to convince China that T.C.K. Smut is not a
serious threat?
Mr. Dunn. I think realistically, Mr. Nethercutt, I would
have to say both. We signed--I signed an agreement--April of
last year with the Chinese on sanitary/phytosanitary issues. We
did not have a Chinese translation of that until we were in
Seattle for the WTO meeting. That was signed at that time; that
appeared to open the doors.
There was a lot of very hard work. I give credit to our
international service APHIS employee, Dale Mackey, who is in
China working very closely with the Chinese to convince them of
the concerns; and in the Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards, Mr. Baker's folks worked extremely hard on this.
But I think there is also a desire for China to prove that they
are going to be a responsible trading partner.
Mr. Nethercutt. I hope they are, because it is a great
market potentially for us in America at a time when prices are
low and we are trying to get exports moving and move product to
other countries. I thank you for the work that has been done,
and all those on your staff who I know have labored on this
over the years on this issue.
wolf reintroduction
Dr. Reed, I see in your written testimony that APHIS, in
cooperation with the Department of the Interior Fish and
Wildlife Service is assisting livestock producers and farmers
by managing damage caused by increased wolf activity in Wyoming
and Idaho and Montana. Has the U.S. Department of Agriculture
assisted the Interior Department in reintroducing wolves into
these areas?
Mr. Reed. We had a minor role in the actual reintroduction,
but as they are reintroduced, we play a part in making sure
that the predator damage is managed; and we also work with the
Fish and Wildlife Service to track the wolves and make sure
that they are not posing a continual threat to producers.
Mr. Nethercutt. I am on the Interior Subcommittee, as well
as this one. On this subcommittee, I think I speak for all of
us on both sides of the political aisle that we are protective
of the research dollars and the ag funds that go to help the
agriculture economy across the country.
Is the Department of the Interior funding its share, fair
share, of the wolf problem; or having now reintroduced wolves
to these areas, is USDA now stuck with the consequences and the
cost consequences of that reintroduction?
Mr. Reed. I don't think the Department of the Interior has
abandoned this, but certainly we know our work is increasing.
The wolf numbers are increasing both in the Northwest and in
the Upper Great Lakes, and so there are more problems there
because there are a lot of wolf pups being born every spring.
Mr. Nethercutt. I understand that. But my question is, who
is paying the bill by virtue of the reintroduction? Is it now
switching over to you folks having to pay the consequences and
the costs of this reintroduction, or is Interior funding any of
it?
Mr. Reed. No, both Departments share the costs.
Mr. Nethercutt. What are the numbers?
Mr. Reed. I will get those for you.
Mr. Dunn. Mr. Nethercutt, we do have annually transferred
from the Department of the Interior's budget $100,000 to our
Wildlife Services for their share in paying for our work with
them on predator control of the wolves.
Mr. Nethercutt. Is that adequate? Does that cover your
costs?
Mr. Dunn. I would have to get back to you on what the
actual costs are.
Mr. Nethercutt. I would appreciate that.
[The information follows:]
In FY 2000, APHIS projects spending $250,000 and the FWS
will provide $100,000 for wolf introduction work in Montana,
Idaho, and Wyoming and $109,000 in Arizona and New Mexico. In
FY 1999, APHIS spent $175,000 and FWS provided $100,000 for
wolf work in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming and $109,000 in Arizona
and New Mexico. While APHIS and FWS share in the costs, APHIS
estimates an additional need of $1,000,000 for Montana, Idaho,
and Wyoming and an additional need of $140,000 for Arizona and
New Mexico for aerial support and personnel to address
complaints.
pesticide data
Mr. Nethercutt. The Pesticide Data Program is important, I
think, to American agriculture with the implementation of the
Food Quality Protection Act. It is unfortunate, in my mind,
that we are using limited agriculture funds to finance a
program that really is under the auspices of the EPA. I am just
wanting to be sure EPA is funding its share and agriculture is
funding its share.
Are you satisfied with that breakdown or not?
Ms. Merrigan. The Pesticide Data Program, as you say, sir,
has been critical to EPA and their decision-making under the
Food Quality Protection Act. We began this program in 1993.
When it was first started, it wasn't necessarily seen as a
linchpin for EPA decision-making. It has become that and it is
one of those few programs where we have everyone from A to Z
supporting it. We are in consultation with EPA in terms of what
data needs they may have, but it really is a stand-alone
program within AMS.
Mr. Nethercutt. I would just close by saying, I am glad you
are there to bring some reason to the models that are
promulgated by EPA as it relates to farmers. I will close
because my time is completed, and I thank you for your work.
Mr. Dunn. Mr. Nethercutt, I would hasten to add that this
information that the Agricultural Marketing Service provides on
the Pesticide Data Program when reregistration of a pesticide
comes up and the data is used by both sides. So it is a good,
impartial entity that gathers that information, that everyone
looks at.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dunn and other members of the Department of Agriculture
staff, I wanted to follow up on a statement that the chairman
made and that is on the Screwworm issue. I was not aware of the
information you brought us about the horses coming into Miami,
maybe a shipment going out into the country someplace. That is
a critical and scary thought. I know I spent a good bit of my
youth treating calves with screwworms, summer and winter, Mr.
Chairman. Not only has the benefit of that program been seen in
the beef industry and other livestock--the commercial livestock
industry, but in the South we have a more abundant population
of wildlife, particularly deer, now than we have at any time in
the last 50 to 100 years probably, certainly during my
lifetime.
A great deal of that reason is because of the eradication
of the Screwworm. So it is imperative that we stay on top of
that.
But I want to shift back to an issue, a subject that Miss
Kaptur opened, and that is Citrus Canker. It probably won't
surprise you. I have ``licked that calf'' several times in this
room, Mr. Dunn; with your indulgence, I would like to ``lick
that calf'' again, as they say back home. Just to remind you
and for the record that we first discovered Citrus Canker in
Miami in 1995. Now today here we are almost 5 years later, 4\1/
2\ years later, and we have Citrus Canker identified and
subsequently causing the destruction of half of our lime
industry, which is 3,000 acres and over 3,400 acres of our
citrus industry. And the scary part about it is, it is
scattered throughout the State. It is in Dade and Broward, it
is over in Collier and Hendry, and it is all the way up the
coast to Hillsborough, and it is moving north, and I think we
had a find in the last few days in Palm Beach County. So it is
moving toward the Indian River area. This is a very scary
situation for our $8.5 billion citrus industry.
I was interested in your comments about the meeting 2 years
ago, not 4 years ago, with Commissioner Crawford about
developing a plan that now seems not to have worked. I
certainly don't want to go back and rehash all that; that is
not productive. What we have to do is go forward from where we
are now.
But we have had hurricanes in this country, we have them in
Florida every year. Those things have to be taken into account.
My question is basically, you have identified $25 million in
your budget for Citrus Canker. But I think you said in your
remarks that the plan that you put in place, the latest plan
with the State and APHIS now says it is a $175 million project.
How do we reconcile the $25 million request or $20 million
request with a $175 million project? Are we throwing the citrus
industry to the wolves or what are we doing here?
Mr. Dunn. No, Mr. Boyd, what we are doing on the $175
million is taking that plan that we put together 2 years ago
and collapsing it from multiyears to a single year.
But one of the things that we have recognized is that our
overall surveillance of the State, we didn't throw a large
enough net the first time around, and that is why as we began
to find these moving north and south. And I think to a large
part, in my mind, this is an emergency situation because it is
a result of hurricanes and other natural disasters that spread
this.
Mr. Boyd. So are you saying that the $25 million, you have
appropriated separately, but you still presume that you would
use the CCC for the balance of the needed $175 million?
Mr. Dunn. We would need--we are saying to the State, now,
this is a draft plan, the $175 million plan. What we are saying
to the State is, we assume that this will be a 50-50 match with
the State, and this is what we need in addition to those moneys
that we have appropriated this year.
Mr. Boyd. And the Fed share would be $87.5 million of $175
million. So we ask for $25 million in a separate budget request
and you would secure the additional $60-plus million through
CCC? Is that what you are saying? Because otherwise it doesn't
reconcile.
Mr. Dunn. It is over and above that request, Mr. Boyd. The
actual $87.5 million.
Mr. Boyd. We are not assuming here that we are substituting
the budget request process for the CCC emergency procedure that
we have used in the past; is that correct?
Mr. Dunn. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Boyd. Mr. Chairman, if I could continue this.
Mr. Skeen. Go ahead. We will indulge you.
Mr. Boyd. I really want to complete the loop here.
Mr. Dunn, last year, last fall when we did the 2000 budget,
we put language in there, in section 204 of Title II which says
that notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary
shall use not more than $9 million of CCC funds for a
cooperative program to replace commercial trees removed to
control Citrus Canker.
Now, we put that language in there at the request of the
Department because the Department told us if we put the
language that way, then we would not have to go through the
rule-making process, and you could expedite the disbursement of
those funds; and certainly that would have a positive effect on
our whole eradication program, because part of the problem here
becomes a political issue with taking farmers and homeowners'
trees out of their yards and out of their fields, out of their
groves.
But here we are, 6 months down the road, and now we are
having this discussion about who is going to do it, we have to
wait 60, 90, 120 days for a rule-making. Can we expedite that
in some way? Because we put that language in there at the
request of your folks so that we could expedite the
disbursement of this.
It is not a complicated issue. FSA and APHIS, I think, know
exactly which trees have been removed. FSA has a process by
which we can get that done.
Mr. Dunn. Mr. Boyd, what those--the language that you are
referring to I believe was to provide for the Shade Dade
Program.
Mr. Boyd. No, sir, that is a separate deal. That was the $7
million which has already been disbursed to the State and the
State is taking care of that. This is the $9 million for the
commercial grower replacement, tree replacement.
Mr. Dunn. I believe, then--the rule-making process that we
have in place right now because what we have changed is the
perimeter from 125 feet to 1,900 feet which includes more, and
then for the lime groves findings.
Mr. Boyd. My question is, we put that language in there
that way at the request of the Department so we could expedite
the rule-making process, and now you are telling us that we
can't do that and it is really going to cause us a problem in
our whole eradication process because the longer you delay
those disbursements, the more of a problem you have with the
growers and homeowners.
Mr. Dunn. That money that you are referring to, we did get
that through apportionment last week from OMB. Money for
homeowners will be transferred to the State to pay for the
homeowners. There is still some concern about the actual
valuation of the commercial value of the trees, and that is one
of the things we are looking at at this time.
Mr. Boyd. Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do, if
possible, I would like to end this line of questioning now, but
on the second round come back to this issue. I know there are
some folks sitting behind Mr. Dunn and others that have a
little more knowledge about this, but I would like to have
answered the issue about the rule-making on the commercial
grower tree replacement.
The issue is, we were told last year when we put this
language in here that this language would expedite the
disbursement, it would require us not to have a rule; and that
is the question I would like to have answered on the next
round.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mrs. Emerson.
poultry legislation
Mrs. Emerson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question or
line of questioning, will go to Mr. Baker.
It has to do with a subject we talked about last year,
poultry and my deep concern about the increasing concentration
and consolidation not only in poultry, which I think is the
worst, but in all agricultural markets right now.
In my particular district, we really have only one
processor present, and it obviously happens across the board,
but quite frankly this raises a lot of questions in my mind
about fairness and fair competition in the marketplace. My
producers have now formed their own trade association, if you
will, called the Heartland Poultry Growers Association, simply
so they can get together and speak with one louder voice than
individual ones. They face a lot of challenges which I am most
concerned about.
Let me ask you, it is my understanding that the
administration has endorsed Miss Kaptur's legislation, H.R.
2829, of which I am an original cosponsor. If that is the case,
can you all just provide to us a letter stating that the
administration does endorse this legislation?
Mr. Baker. I will certainly try. I don't see any reason why
we shouldn't. We are on record as endorsing it.
Mrs. Emerson. I believed you were, but if you could
actually give it to us in black and white, I would feel a lot
better about it. Could you do me a favor and explain to the
subcommittee how this legislation does not create special
privileges for poultry growers or the poultry industry, but it
merely provides you all at USDA with the very same authority
you already have over the beef and pork industries?
Mr. Baker. We presently have administrative authority in
the beef and poultry industry. We do not have administrative
authority over the poultry companies.
Mrs. Emerson. You mean beef and pork, but you don't over
poultry?
Mr. Baker. That's right. Any formal action that we have to
take against a poultry company, we have to refer that action to
the Department of Justice, which takes that action. We have the
responsibility to investigate and try to resolve issues with
poultry companies, but no authority, no heavy authority. It was
never given to USDA; we have asked for it.
Mrs. Emerson. So it would be correct to say, then, the
poultry growers are currently today at a disadvantage relative
to beef and pork producers; is that correct?
Mr. Baker. That is correct.
Mrs. Emerson. Tell me what kind of concerns y'all hear from
poultry growers, and do you think that Miss Kaptur's and my
bill would, in fact, help you address those concerns that you
are hearing?
Mr. Baker. The last question first: Yes, it would help us
address them.
Just recently, in the last month, we sent eight people into
a poultry company in Mississippi; and five to interview
growers, and three to interview management for 4 days. The
management had canceled the contracts with 130 growers, taken
out the fuel allowance that they had had for years, and reduced
the value of the contract. We asked a tremendous amount of
questions, got all the records we could from the company. When
we left on the fourth day, this company had the best contract
in Mississippi.
But again, our authority was not there. Our presence was.
And the growers were greatly, greatly appreciated that we
responded with that magnitude to address their concerns.
Mrs. Emerson. So obviously if you could have the same
authority that you do with the beef and pork industry, that
would even help the situation further?
Mr. Baker. It is kind of like an offduty policeman. In
other words, he is there, but you really don't know it. That
just happened with the poultry companies. We are there, they
don't have to recognize us. They do, and we have since
developed a better response from the companies. Any formal
action still has to be taken with Justice.
Mrs. Emerson. Last year y'all requested an increase of
$750,000 for poultry compliance activities which we approved,
and this year you are asking for $800,000 to examine the
competitive structure of the poultry industry. Can you tell us
in a little bit more detail what you did with last year's funds
and what you would do with the proposed increase this year?
Mr. Baker. Yes. Last year we had beefed up our
investigative response out in the districts, consolidated
poultry activities in the Atlanta region, but did not have the
money to staff up for the poultry work. We used that money
basically last year to increase the staff.
This year, most of the complaints that we hear from the
poultry industry are complaints tied to the contracts; the
contracts are just not adequate enough to make cash flow. Is
there competition in the contracts? So we think we need to
focus on the competitiveness of the contracts, and see if they
do provide cash flow for people to make a return on their
investment.
We want to get into the details of the contracting with the
people that we were able to hire last year.
Mrs. Emerson. Mr. Chairman, let me just ask one more quick
question then.
If, in fact, we were to pass Miss Kaptur's and my
legislation granting you the same authority that you have with
beef and pork, would that require even more than the additional
$800,000?
Mr. Baker. We do not think so.
Mrs. Emerson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Baker. We do not think so. The money that we have would
be adequate. The authority is what we need.
Mrs. Emerson. Thank you very much.
mandatory price reporting
Mr. Skeen. While we are at this stage, let me address this
to Administrator Merrigan. I understand that the proposed rule
on mandatory price reporting is scheduled to be published in
the Federal Register on March 17. And it is now available on
your website. I want to commend you for the rate at which you
were able to put the rule together.
How long is the comment period open and when do you expect
to publish a final rule?
Ms. Merrigan. The comment period, as stipulated by the
statute, would be 30 days long. When we go to a final rule and
actually implement will be sometime this summer. The statute,
as you know, sir, had a very aggressive timetable for AMS to
follow to get this program up and running. By my estimate, we
are about 6 weeks behind.
Mr. Skeen. It is aggressive.
Ms. Merrigan. We are really struggling to meet the
deadlines. We will have a program up and running. I know people
are anxious for it. It will be up this summer.
Mr. Skeen. You have done it very well, especially in the
time you have had to get acquainted and put it into use. We
appreciate it.
Ms. Merrigan. Thank you.
Mr. Skeen. Miss Kaptur.
local producer outlets
Miss Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask several of our
guests this morning, in northwest Ohio, where I live, the only
place you can buy poultry raised by local growers, retail, is
at the local farmers market in a little poultry shed which is
inspected by our city; and I buy my chicken there. At any other
store in our region--and there are several chains that
operate--you cannot purchase locally grown chicken. This is
troubling to me.
The same is true with eggs. The only place you can now buy
eggs in our region produced by local growers is at a few of the
independently owned vegetable markets that operate in our area.
About 2 years ago, when our hog producers were getting
about 9 cents a pound for pork, I went to the store and I
looked at the prices and they hadn't gone down in the retail
chain. If we have price elasticity in food production, why
wasn't it reflected on the shelf?
The question I have to all of you or any one of you would
be, what is happening in our country?
Secretary Dunn, you talked about concentration and
consolidation, that our local producers can't get on the shelf,
and that in fact whoever is controlling price in this country
in food purchases at the local retail store doesn't respond to
the marketplace. But in fact when the price of something like
pork goes down to the producer, it doesn't go down in the
store.
What is happening?
Mr. Dunn. The question on inspection of the local processor
is something that food safety inspection service would handle
which is under Under Secretary Woteki's jurisdiction. We have
been asked to look at the retail side, especially since last
year, last December, when pork prices had dropped to $8 a
hundredweight, and many people did not see prices come down on
the retail side. That is something we have talked to Economic
Research Service ERS about.
Miss Kaptur. Do you have the funds to do that now? Can you
give us a report on why prices didn't drop in these retail
stores?
Mr. Dunn. I do not have anything in Marketing and
Regulatory Programs that would address the retail sector. That
would be under the Federal Trade Commission's jurisdiction.
I might add that I had an opportunity to visit that shop
that you mentioned. And was very impressed with what they were
doing.
Miss Kaptur. I am sure they are inspected by the State, and
I don't know by how many people. But the point is it is the
only place you can buy locally grown products from our
producers. So my question really goes to the heart, if we have
these producers that are really trying to survive in this
economy, why can't they get on the local shelf? And I know that
our community is not the only one where that is happening. Does
anybody at USDA care about this?
Ms. Merrigan. Let me, from the Agricultural Marketing
Service, speak to your question, your concern briefly. I mean,
there are institutional barriers, as you know. You, along with
the other committee members, have asked the Agricultural
Marketing Service and we are working in cooperation with the
Economic Research Service to look at slotting fees as an
institutional barrier.
But one of the other things I find is, a lot of the small
farmers that I work with are really great on production
management systems. They are not always so great on marketing.
One of the things that we try to do at AMS through the
Federal/State Marketing Improvement Program, through the
partnership with the SARE program, on small grants for direct
marketing for farmers that the committee provided to us, and
through our wholesale market development program, is to find
ways to get that farmer into the market, to get his or her
product to local markets.
The other thing I will tell you about is, we really need to
think more about the consumer end. You clearly are a consumer
who cares about buying locally. Where I am from in western
Massachusetts, they have a whole campaign called ``Be a Local
Hero.'' The local supermarkets are actually behind it. They are
stocking more locally grown items. They have T-shirts and
campaigns, and it really is starting to work the consumer-
demand side that we don't see across the country.
One of the things we are trying to do in AMS is look at
these little experiments, where these things are happening, and
try to replicate them and share that intelligence from farmer
to farmer.
Miss Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say with what is
going on in rural America today--and maybe I just haven't read
this testimony from all the witnesses this morning completely,
I don't sense an urgency of USDA, trying to meet the real
crisis that is out there, in the budget proposals that have
come before us to try to help these farmers. I am talking about
small and independent farmers. How, medium-size producers gain
a foothold in this marketplace. There is too much of a
business-as-usual attitude.
Maybe I am not reading your budget submission completely,
maybe I am misunderstanding something, but I would like to see
more focus on how this year there is nothing in the
supplemental. We are just providing AMTA payments to hold the
whole structure up right now. But in terms of really dealing
with the small and medium-size farmers that are out there, I
don't see in this budget efforts to--you think that it is a
good idea in western Massachusetts--then to expand it to many
other places, to really work to move product to farmers
markets, if that is the only option we have got left in the
country in many places.
I just don't sense the urgency in where the pressure really
is, on helping the small and medium-size producer, because the
big folks are doing okay with the AMTA payments. But it is the
small and medium-size producers, that aren't row crop, that are
really having trouble; and I am really troubled by what I see
as a lack of commitment by USDA and what it has presented to us
thus far.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Bonilla.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start
with the request, the budget request, for the Boll Weevil
Eradication Program. There was a request in my understanding of
2.8 million and that would eliminate any cost share for the 8.5
million acres either currently in the program or about to enter
the program.
This being an especially tough time economically for a lot
of our producers out there, it seems that this would, in
essence, be pulling the rug out from under a very successful
program. I hope that the Department sees fit to change its
position.
How do you see this?
Mr. Dunn. Mr. Bonilla, the last couple of years what the
Department has done is look at the Boll Weevil Eradication
Program, and it is very I successful, and it is one that the
Department does support. However, given the limited budget
authorities that we do have at USDA, we have worked with the
farm service agencies to ensure that they have the authority to
provide loans for producers to take part and provide a buy-in
by the producers for the Boll Weevil Eradication Program. That
has been part of the budget submission.
Mr. Bonilla. Is that, in essence, going to replace what the
Boll Weevil line item would have provided if it had more money?
Mr. Dunn. Historically, Congressman, what has happened is
that the committee, in its wisdom, has found some way to
replace the funds that we have said would be loans.
Mr. Bonilla. I am sorry, I don't quite understand.
Mr. Dunn. Traditionally, what has happened the last couple
of years is that where we have proposed that this be a loan
program through the Farm Service Agency, the committee has
found a way to actually find funds to fund it 100 percent.
FERAL HOGS
Mr. Bonilla. This is something that a lot of us on this
committee are concerned about, so we are going to keep trying
to address this problem because we see it as very--again, as
you agreed, successful program that we want to make sure that
our producers can take advantage of.
I want to move now to a question about something that may
be unique to our part of the country down in the Southwest,
along the Texas-Mexico border, and that is the feral hog
problem in Texas. It is amazing the growth of the hog
population down there that is now threatening--it is expected
to pass the white tail deer population--and all of the farmers
and ranchers down there see them as a--they are kind of fun for
hunters to chase once in a while, but they are--also, the
overriding factor is a concern for property destruction. They
are just creating havoc on a lot of the farms and ranches down
there.
Is there any plan to help some of these producers down
there with this invasion of feral hogs?
Mr. Reed. We are working with the State of Texas on the
feral hog population. Unfortunately, hog populations are
increasing in the wild, just like they are in captivity, and we
don't see a slowdown in their numbers. But we are helping the
State of Texas.
We know they cause considerable damage. Even with hunts and
the hunt clubs killing some animals, we have got growing
numbers of hogs, not just in Texas, but Louisiana, Florida,
Tennessee, and Alabama, too.
Mr. Bonilla. There has been, if anything, an acceleration
in the number of hogs that we have down there. We would be
interested in working with you all on that. Some of the farmers
and ranchers down there just don't know what to do anymore.
They are just flooding the place.
wildlife services operation budget reduction
I will move now to a question about imported lamb. Last
year the President signed a trade agreement that said--set
limits on imported lamb. It was a very appropriate decision
that we were glad that he saw the need to make. But on the
other side, for the sheep and goat producers down there, they
are concerned because the budget request this year recommends a
$2.7 million reduction to the Wildlife Services Program. I
understand Wildlife Services isn't directly connected to trade.
However, on one end we are helping them and on the other end we
are hurting them on a program in a reduction that is very
significant to their ability to meet the needs of these
difficult markets right now.
Can you tell us what the thinking is there, helping on one
end and hurting on the other?
Mr. Reed. Let me talk about the Wildlife Services side of
it rather than the trade side.
We know that there was a reduction in Wildlife Services
budget request for FY 2001. We haven't had to make reductions
yet, but we are looking down the road this year to the
operational budget being reduced, probably across the board. We
see that as serious.
We also had a rescission in the Wildlife Services budget in
FY 2000. We were directed to make the reduction. It puts us in
a box.
Mr. Bonilla. So you would agree that this is not enough,
this $2.7 million? I mean, the reduction does not provide
enough of what we really need out there for Wildlife Services?
Mr. Reed. We wouldn't have asked for it if we didn't need
it.
Mr. Bonilla. Again, this is an area that we hope to provide
a higher number on, because I think we are in agreement that
the line item request now is inadequate.
Do I have remaining time, Mr. Chairman, or am I out of
time?
Mr. Skeen. We will indulge you for about a minute.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you.
pork checkoff
I want to move now--the Secretary recently announced that
the USDA will hold a referendum on the pork checkoff program. I
was wondering what the plan is to pay for this, especially in
light of the fact that the Secretary said the Department did
not have the money needed to pay for implementation of
mandatory price reporting.
Ms. Merrigan. The cost in the first year of mandatory price
reporting, our estimate is $4.7 million, which the committee
was very kind to provide to the Ag Marketing Service. Our
estimate of what it will cost to conduct a referendum in the
pork checkoff--it is not a final estimate yet because we are
going to have a proposed rule on the referendum procedure;
which will have a 60-day comment period, hopefully that will be
published sometime soon--but our expectation is that that will
be about $125,000. I have checked with the Office of General
Counsel, and they have indicated to me that we would be able to
take that money from section 32 administrative funds, that
there is that flexibility there.
cattle ticks
Mr. Bonilla. Very good. And the last question I have on a
different subject, covering a lot of territory here this
morning, is the Cattle Tick Program, which a lot of my
colleagues probably don't even know what is involved, because
it is unique to our area, or primarily to my area down there.
Tick fever costs about $5 billion a year in death losses.
During the past year the first case of tick fever in 24 years
was detected in Zapata County. Last year the program received a
very small increase in funding. It is a program that I have
been talking about for a couple of years now.
Can you tell us how this money has been spent?
Mr. Reed. We went down and visited with the tick riders in
Laredo this past year with your staff. We are doing a number of
things. We were able to provide pay increases rather than fill
vacancies. The tick program is one of the most effective ways
to control cattle ticks coming across the border; it is not
getting any cheaper to do it but it is still effective. Ticks
in Texas and Arizona on cattle are not the only problems we
have. Ticks on other species are equally as important. We like
the tick program, have supported it, and are trying to find
ways to help the inspectors improve their grade status. We are
behind it.
Mr. Bonilla. Just a final comment, Doctor--not a question,
Mr. Chairman, but I want to thank you for the attention you
have given to this program down there. It is very important. I
know you have worked very closely with my staff on it; I hope
you keep doing that. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Farr.
animal welfare
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have several
questions, and I will try to get through them.
The first is related to Animal Care. Can you tell me how
the Department's enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act has been
affected by the budget shortfalls in the Animal Care Division
over the past decade? Just briefly outline for us what the
problem has been.
Mr. Reed. Yes, Congressman, I can give you a pretty direct
response to that.
We have had basically a flat budget for animal care
activities since 1991. Back then we were performing about
17,000 inspections a year of licensed dealers and exhibitors.
With that flat budget, we have had both an attrition of staff
and an inability to perform the travel required so we are down
to less than 10,000 inspections a year. The increased money
that is in the budget will help to get us closer to the '91-'92
inspection levels.
Mr. Farr. I am glad to see--what was it a $5 million
increase this year by the President?
Mr. Reed. Yes.
Mr. Farr. What improvements in the inspection program do
you think will be possible with the $5 million? Will you get
back to the 17,000?
Mr. Reed. We will not get back to 17,000 initially, but we
will be able to conduct much-needed training of our inspectors
in the field, so they apply regulations more uniformly.
The inspection business is more complicated today than it
was in 1992, especially when you consider the new technology in
biomedical research and the complexity of the research
regulations.
We will be able to hire a number of new inspectors. We will
acquire equipment, cars, and have gas so they can perform
necessary inspections.
Mr. Farr. Has this shortfall affected the Department's
ability to serve what is called the needs of the ``regulated
community,'' the community such as zoos and laboratories,
airlines?
Mr. Reed. They support the increase and have aligned
themselves with animal groups to support the increase. They
want better service.
Mr. Farr. Is it effective? Have you cut down on your
service to the regulated community?
Mr. Reed. We prioritize our inspections and go to the
places where we think there are the biggest problems. We have
performed fewer inspections. Those inspections include research
facility requested inspections to establish their compliance
status.
Mr. Farr. So with the increased budget amount, you are
going to be able to improve those services?
Mr. Reed. Yes.
pierce's disease
Mr. Farr. The committee reported a supplemental
appropriations that contained $7.14 million for Pierce's
Disease. I wanted to thank you for that.
I am concerned about the way evaporation occurs in this
funding. What I mean is, by the time the funding would reach
the field level, the dollar amount could be anywhere from 15 to
25 percent lower than what has been appropriated. I wondered
what the agency's level of overhead amount will be, taken out
of the $7.14 million that was appropriated, what the program
level overhead amount will be taken out of these funds; and
when the funds reach the regional office, is more taken out to
support the regional office?
What is your estimate of the $7.14 million funding level
that will actually reach the field?
Mr. Reed. I would have to get the exact breakdown for you.
There is going to be a reduction for overhead. We have risk
assessors, experts that are world-renowned people on Pierce's
Disease. These folks have to be supported with a portion of
that money.
Mr. Farr. I think the frustration is when we get some
research money appropriated to a crisis like that, just by
trickle-down effect is the very problem you are trying to
solve, everybody has put in their administrative claim on it
and very little money hits the ground.
What is the use of appropriating it if that is going to
happen?
Mr. Reed. We know that at least 85 percent reaches the
field. We build support costs into the request. We know ahead
of time that support activities become involved with these
activities so must be included in the estimate.
Mr. Farr. So you are claiming that of the $7.14 million, 85
percent of that money, only 15 percent overhead for all levels
of government that are involved with that?
Mr. Reed. Yes.
Mr. Farr. Total, not 15 percent each?
Mr. Reed. No, it is not additive along the way.
Mr. Farr. I will come back to that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Latham.
Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
mandatory price reporting
Welcome, everyone. Last year I made sure the price
reporting was part of our appropriations bill and last year
requested $6 million. I guess I have several questions.
You are assuring us that that funding level is adequate. I
would like to know how you arrived at the number. And because
the responsibilities are broken up between the Food Safety
Inspection Service and the Economic Research Service and the
FAS, can you tell us where the breakdown is on those dollars,
what agency, how much they get?
Ms. Merrigan. The budget request for AMS of $5.9 million
only covers the responsibilities that the Ag Marketing Service
has. So as you point out, there are many agencies within USDA
that have pieces of responsibility under the statute, the
lion's share, though, being AMS. Of the $5.9 million--and we
will provide you a detailed breakdown--a little over $3 million
of that is staff.
We have to hire a lot of auditors to run this program, to
double-check that the information that we are receiving is
accurate. We also have to purchase some hardware, some
software. There is some travel in it.
But we have a detailed breakdown on the $5.9 million. We
feel very confident that that is a good figure.
Mr. Latham. So the other agencies, then, will have it come
out of their regular budget? Are there provisions? The budget
will be adequate?
Mr. Dunn. Mr. Latham, you will notice in the GIPSA request,
there was $400,000 in there for their portion of the swine
contract library in there. It would be my assumption that each
of those agencies that are responsible for a portion of that
would make similar requests, and I would have to defer to Mr.
Kaplan as to what the other entities have done at USDA.
Mr. Kaplan. There is an additional $500,000 in the NAAS
budget for this item. For FAS and the other agencies you
mentioned, this comes out of their base. There are no specific
increases in their budgets.
Mr. Latham. I just want to make sure that we don't come
back and say, oops, we ran out of money and we can't do it. I
am not sure my producers would appreciate that.
pseudorabies
Dr. Reed, your agency is working to eliminate pseudorabies.
I have a major problem in several of my counties, very large
outbreaks. It concerns me a great deal to see you reducing the
budget, the funding by, what, $524,000.
First of all, give us an update on how you are doing in
this very serious problem, and how you can justify a budget
decrease with the huge problem we have.
Mr. Reed. We have shifted $500,000 from the pseudorabies
program to the monitoring program to look at herds in counties
to determine disease status. You have to know the disease
status in all herds in an area to make sure that you are
eliminating all of the disease.
Second, we have made considerable progress on pseudorabies
eradication. We started with over 1,100 infected herds a couple
of years ago and now we are down to 400 herds. During this
effort, we had a significant outbreak both in your State and in
Minnesota that we addressed along the way. So we would have had
a lot more problems without all of that.
We can get you specific numbers on herds, dollars, et
cetera, if that is what you would like.
Mr. Latham. You are reducing monitoring. It would almost
seem like, if you reduce that, you are saying, well, we are not
going to find out about as many cases, so we don't have as big
a problem. I don't quite understand.
Mr. Reed. The monitoring is part of the pseudorabies
effort. There were millions of dollars in direct payments that
went to producers, but we have to keep monitoring the States to
determine disease status.
Mr. Latham. So what you are doing is taking money out of
that; if I understood your answer, you are decreasing $524,000.
But you said you are moving money out of monitoring; is that
correct?
Mr. Reed. The $500,000 has shifted from the pseudorabies
program to the monitoring program. I may have misspoken
earlier.
Mr. Dunn. Mr. Latham, if I might, 2 years ago we did get
$80 million for our pseudorabies program and another $40
million last year to do that. We thought that we were well on
the road to eradication. I think in Iowa, in particular, which
is also my home State, the exceedingly warm weather has really
exacerbated the problem. The fact of the matter is that we had
not planned for this additional outbreak when we had prepared
the budget, so we will take another look at this as you are
suggesting.
Mr. Latham. I would just, in closing--Go, Cyclones, this
week at the NCAAs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. You are always wishing.
Mr. Latham. Come on. We are there, man.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Dunn, I wanted to say, first of all, that you and
your people have been very helpful and cooperative as we have
tried to work through this crisis. I sensed an uneasiness about
maybe the tone of my question, and I want to make sure that
that wasn't mistaken.
If there is an urgency in my tone, it is because, in
Florida, we are deathly afraid of losing our $8.5 billion
industry. Unlike the 1980s, when we contained the Citrus Canker
to the nurseries, this has now spread into producing groves all
over the State. That is the reason for the urgency in my tone,
I guess. I just wanted to say that to you, Secretary Dunn.
Do we have an answer about the commercial tree replacement
at this time, or is it something you need to get back with me
on, the rule-making and why we have to do that, given the
language?
Mr. Dunn. I have been given an answer, Mr. Boyd, but I
think we might muddy the waters more than we would clear them,
so if you would allow us to get back to you in writing on that,
I would appreciate that.
Mr. Boyd. The last thing we want to do at this hearing is
muddy the water more.
I want you to know that this whole issue of invasive pests
is one that we all realize is a product of increased trade,
increased tourism. I think you have cited the numbers yourself.
There are many of us who support the efforts; I am a sponsor of
the Canady legislation which will give you more tools to do
your job, and you have allies on this committee who would help
you get more resources to do your job. We want you to know
that, because it is a little bit disappointing when we cite the
problem annually, year after year, we don't ask for resources
to deal with the problem.
I know these are not necessarily your decisions, but I want
you to know that you do have allies here to help fight this. We
recognize what your burdens are there.
I think the only other thing I want to say, if you are
going to get back with me on the question, is the issue of the
use of CCC funds; and there are some members of this committee
that feel like there might be an attempt from somewhere up
above, OMB or somebody, to replace the authority we have to
deal with emergencies out of CCC by cracking into this
committee's discretionary budget. I think I have your
assurance--I know I certainly have the assurance of the
Secretary--that that is not the case; and I think that is what
you told me earlier, that you only asked for $20.5 million to
deal with this issue, but you know that CCC is available if we
have to go beyond that.
Mr. Dunn. Yes, sir, we fully intend to go to CCC for
funding of this new, combined, 1-year program.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much. I look forward to the answer
on the $9 million commercial tree replacement program.
[The information follows:]
In the case of the Shade Dade program for noncommercial
trees, the State already had a voucher program in place that
can provide a basis for distributing the $7 million provided in
the supplemental. However, in the case of the $9 million
provided in the supplemental for commercial trees, neither the
State nor APHIS have a program in place to pay tree replacement
costs, so it is incumbent upon us to develop a formula for
determining who should receive compensation and how much they
should receive. Beause there are many potential recipients of
the money and many potential formulas for setting the amount we
might pay, we must go through the rulemaking process to ensure
that interested parties have a chance to comment and that we
make the payments on a consistent and fair basis.
We understand your concern with the delay in getting
payments to farmers who have suffered losses. Although we must
use rulemaking, we will expedite the process and give this rule
our highest priority.
Mr. Skeen. Mrs. Emerson.
Mrs. Emerson. Mr. Under Secretary, or any of you all who
want to answer this question, or everyone. This has to do with
invasive species.
The fact is that I am hearing almost as much as I have
about telephone taxes from my farmers and ranchers about the
President's executive order on invasive species and what you
all are doing to support that. A lot of my producers believe
that that executive order would limit their ability to use
longstanding and legitimate agricultural products, and
specifically--some of my livestock producers have said that
some of the grasses they use for forage could be considered
alien under the conditions that the executive order may
establish.
We have another problem that kind of relates to this, and
that has to do with the whole issue of reintroduction of elk by
our Missouri Department of Conservation, because they are
considered a native species, if you will, and we are going to
perhaps have, as a result of that, a lot of damage to crops and
other livestock. The combination of these two things has got so
many of my people absolutely up in arms.
Obviously, while I applaud the general idea of the
executive order, I am a little bit troubled that some of these
same situations could occur once it is totally promulgated.
Tell me what y'all are doing to address those concerns, if you
will.
Mr. Dunn. Mrs. Emerson, first of all, let me commend you on
your efforts at reinstituting the Rural Caucus. That is
something that we in the Department look forward to, and I
think is going to be a tremendous help for us in rural America
as well.
Mrs. Emerson. Thank you. I hope so.
Mr. Dunn. The Secretary chairs, along with the Secretary of
Commerce and the Secretary of Interior, the effort on the
executive order for invasive species. Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service has been asked to take the lead as far as
the Department of Agriculture in this arena. What we are trying
to do is to combine the efforts of eight different departments,
over 22 different agencies, to ensure that we are all focusing
in the same way to identify the problems as early as possible,
to take the steps that we need to eradicate those problems or
reverse what we are doing now.
With the loss already of 100 million acres and another 3
million acres a year, there is a great deal of concern. Two
weeks ago, I chaired a panel in which we had members from the
National Cattlemen Beef Association, from the seed association
along with the garden club and the national conservation groups
and the Secretary of Agriculture from California. I anticipated
that there would be a lot of upheaval, that these folks would
disagree on things.
What I found was that they agreed on more things than they
disagreed. I think that is the spirit that we have got to go
forward in implementing this executive order. We simply cannot
use up 3 million acres a year of our countryside.
Once we--there are a lot of concerns about developing lists
and who should be on the advisory committee; we expanded that
advisory committee from 25 members to 32 members to ensure that
we had all the voices on there. I am guardedly optimistic that
what we come up with will be positive and good for all sectors.
Mrs. Emerson. Do you suppose that in developing the list of
those species which are--you have a look on your face, but,
anyway.
Mr. Dunn. There is a lot of concern about developing the
list. I don't know that anybody is going to go out and say, all
right, here is the list, because one person's poison is
another's cocktail.
Mrs. Emerson. I guess if you don't develop some sort of
criteria, if you will, for what is alien and what is native,
then how in fact will this executive order work?
Mr. Dunn. What we are looking at are things--kudzu, for
instance, that everybody can agree is a problem, no matter
where you sit. Those are the types of things that we need to
attack, that we need to be able to muster all the resources,
not just the Federal Government, but State and local government
and Indian reservations as well.
So we are not in there without partners. We have a lot of
partners in there and everybody is going to be heard.
Mrs. Emerson. So that my producers can feel good about the
fact, I can go back and tell them that they have a seat at the
table, and that perhaps something as economically indispensable
as fescue may not be considered alien?
Mr. Dunn. That would be my hope.
Mrs. Emerson. And mine, too. Thank you.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Reed, so in
continuing that discussion on the Pierce's appropriation of
$7.14 million, how much of that will reach California?
Mr. Reed. I didn't do the math.
Mr. Farr. You said only 15 percent would be taken off by
all the administrative agencies, so that would be $6.069. So we
can quote you?
Mr. Reed. Yes.
organic rule
Mr. Farr. Let me move to another issue, organic rule. I
authored the first legislation in the Nation when I was a state
legislator in California, creating the California Organic Act
which was the model for the Federal act in 1990.
Under our act in the State of California, we have a label
that you can put on, saying ``certified organic,'' and then it
quotes the law, the ``certified organic'' by the 1990 organic
act, California Organic Act.
In the rules you have adopted, is it going to allow the
States to continue to have--their requirements are tougher than
the Federal requirements; and I understand in the rule you have
just adopted, you kind of changed it. You added that States'
requirements only be to unique environmental conditions with
specific production or handling practices particular to the
State or portion of the State.
Does that interpretation mean that California cannot
continue to use the ``certified organic'' label?
Mr. Reed. I need to pass this to Kathleen.
Ms. Merrigan. Let me just say that Secretary Glickman was
sorry you were unable to join him at the press conference.
Mr. Farr. So was I.
Ms. Merrigan. We had to accelerate our schedule.
Mr. Farr. He scheduled it on election day in California.
Ms. Merrigan. We realize that was unfortunate. It was
because the press broke the story before we broke the story.
In terms of what a State is allowed to do under this
proposed rule, it is pretty much guided by the statute that
Congress passed in 1990. That is, a State can have standards
beyond the Federal standards, but they may not discriminate on
products coming in from other States, and they cannot assert
that their organic product is greater or better than another
State's product, and for that program that the State would
have, those organic standards would have to be approved by the
Secretary of Agriculture.
The proposed rule, as you say, sets out certain criteria
that a State program would assert as a reason to have an
additional standard beyond the Federal standard. An example I
always use is, if you have a sensitive aquifer that needs
protection beyond which would make sense at a Federal level,
that really is needed in a State or a region of a State,
additional standards might be proposed for that.
Mr. Farr. So you will be able to have products on the
shelves that say ``organic,'' but they are not certified State
organic, so you are going to have a competition in labeling
here between Federal labels and State labels?
Ms. Merrigan. No.
Basically, the main job of USDA, when this program goes
into place, is to accredit certifying agents, the existing body
of private and State certifying agents that are out there, who
will still be able to use their own seals. So, for example, in
your own State, CCOF, which has a seal, will be able to
continue to use that seal if they are the certifying agent.
Mr. Farr. Right now, they are the only ones on the shelves
in California?
Ms. Merrigan. No. You have product in California certified
by a lot of different certifying agents--Oregon Till, OCIA--
there are no restrictions that I am aware of of product coming
into your State that is certified by other States.
Mr. Farr. The bottom line of the new rule is that it is not
going to affect the existing labeling practices in California?
Ms. Merrigan. My understanding of the proposed rule is that
it meets at least all of the requirements that are currently in
place in California. So there should not be any major
difference felt in the State of California other than that
certification will become mandatory.
Now it is optional. It will become mandatory.
Mr. Farr. I like that.
glassy-winged sharpshooter
Lastly, the Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter is a huge problem in
California. You know that. The question is, I am hearing more
about this than any other exotic pest I have ever heard of, but
I am also hearing that there is a concern that APHIS isn't
really treating this much differently from any other pest and
that there is some concern that since this is not of
international origin, that we don't pay as much attention to it
and that, therefore, because it is not of international--not of
foreign origin, it doesn't get the attention because it is not
a Federal action pest. Is that true?
Mr. Dunn. I think that because the Glassy-Winged
Sharpshooter is a vector for Pierce's Disease, we are treating
this very, very seriously. In fact, I went out to Riverside and
gave them $360,000 to help, which I thought was fantastic. I
observed the city, the county and the State all pitching in to
fight this problem, because they realize what an impact that
would have on the local economy. It is something that is
indigenous to the southeastern part of the United States; it is
not something that has been indigenous to California.
We are going to treat this as a serious pest, yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. You don't treat it differently because it is a
domestic pest rather than a foreign pest?
Mr. Dunn. When you look at our regionalization standards,
there are things that are in some regions of the United States
that are not in other regions of the United States. What we try
to do is ensure where we have something that is not indigenous
to an area, we don't let it get in there. That is, of course,
why California has all of their folks at the border stopping to
check, to make sure that produce doesn't come in from other
parts of the nation.
Mr. Farr. Is that compensated by the Federal Government or
is that all State-paid-for?
Mr. Dunn. It is all-State, that program is a State program,
but we have a similar program of keeping other things out
nationwide. We have quarantines that we provide.
Mr. Farr. That is what I am trying to get to, Mr. Chairman.
We all--on this subcommittee, we all have sort of our own
problems, pests that are in our areas, in our districts or our
States that are not in other districts or States. Yet there is
the same problem that Mr. Boyd talked about, the same reasons
for transporting these pests that you don't want to be in your
State.
I think that there is a growing concern, and perhaps we
just need a better education on what the Department does to try
to contain these problems within the area where they occur so
that they won't be spread either internally in the United
States or into this country from outside. Perhaps we just need
a better briefing on, if there is any difference between the
two, between foreign and domestic, then what the program is to
contain them within their region.
regulatory activities
Mr. Reed. We have Federal and State quarantines to prevent
movement in and out of certain States. We look at the
Sharpshooter problem in California as an invasive problem, even
though it didn't come from another country, we are working with
the States on these problems. If we need to set up a
quarantine, we will.
Somebody asked earlier about progress on the Boll Weevil;
we may get to the point where we need to establish a national
quarantine on boll weevil. If we do that, it is going to cost
money to enforce it. You can't just have it and just walk away.
We consider it serious. That is why the National Plant Board
and all of us work together with State departments of
agriculture to make sure if a State has got a reason to keep
product out of another State, we are going to help make sure
that it works.
Mr. Dunn. Mr. Farr, let me make another point, because
there are some similarities here of the other diseases that we
have talked about.
This disease, Pierce's Disease, that the Glassy-Winged
Sharpshooter is a vector for Plum Pox Virus that we have in
Pennsylvania, Citrus Canker that we have in Florida; all these
are viruses that right now we don't have any tool in our bag to
fight. What we need is a Manhattan Project approach, to going
in and looking at these viruses. Can we come up with an
inoculation; is there something that we can do short of
removing the trees and incinerating them. That's where we are.
Frankly, we and ARS and others have been doing these things
piecemeal. What the Secretary and I have been talking about is
bringing all of this together and taking a look at what it is,
and going after it with all of our resources, to come up with
answers that address these problems. We have got to start
thinking outside of the box that we are in right now.
Mr. Farr. In closing, the State of California and
Chancellor Orbach at Riverside has proposed to the State that
they build a center for exotic disease--for exotic pests
research, the Manhattan Project that you are talking about.
They are asking for some Federal support, and the members of
this committee are supporting that. I hope you are aware of
that effort in southern California.
Mr. Skeen. Miss Kaptur.
Miss Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In my final round of questioning, whenever that comes, I am
going to ask each of you to tell me for the record what steps
you are taking administratively this year, or incorporated in
this budget proposal for next year's budget, that are directly
aimed at small and medium-size farmers and the crisis that they
are facing across this country. But I will let you think about
that for a minute.
chiapas screwworm facility
Dr. Reed, you talked in your testimony about the
effectiveness of the Screwworm Eradication Program. Last year
when you all were before this committee, I asked the question I
have asked of the Secretary and of others in the Department
about the Screwworm facility that exists in Chiapas. We talked
last year about how that might be converted, working with other
parts of USDA to a facility that would employ people in
agriculture down there producing something that would be
appropriate to that environment. I remember Mr. Figueroa had
talked about pineapples, coffee, tropical fruits that wouldn't
necessarily conflict with something we grow in this country.
Could you tell me, has anything been done inside the
Department to try to reposition agricultural activity out
there? I know that many hundreds of people are unemployed now
who had worked in that particular facility.
Mr. Reed. We have a meeting with the Mexicans the week of
March 26 to discuss how we can help. The reason it was delayed
to the week of March 26, 2000, instead of March 26, 1999, is
because we don't have financing for the plant in Panama, so
construction has not started. We know it is a little ways off,
but we feel the need to have a meaningful conversation with the
folks in Chiapas to decide on the future use of that facility.
We are open to everything.
Of course, whether it is agriculture or whether it is
nonagriculture, the Mexicans, in great part, will decide how it
will be used. We will be there the week of March 26, and will
give you a report of that meeting.
[The information follows:]
On March 30, 2000, the US-Mexico Commission scheduled a
meeting to discuss alternative uses for the screwworm
facilities in Chiapa De Corzo, Chiapas, Mexico. We will report
meeting discussions and future action plans when they are
available to the committee.
Mr. Dunn. Miss Kaptur, I traveled down to Chiapas to meet
with the Governor and State Director of Agriculture 3 months
ago, 4 months ago, to tour the facility that we have there and
see how we are coming in the phasing-out there and what can be
done.
There are some immediate problems that we have in Chiapas.
One is that there is a Medfly infestation there. I have talked
with the Governor and the Secretary of Agriculture there. They
have convinced other states in Mexico that they need to join
Chiapas in fighting their Medfly problem, to eradicate Medfly.
I think that is an important step. That is one way that that
facility could possibly be used.
But I was very impressed by the diversity of agriculture
that they had in this state. I had prawns one night that were
this big. They had a Thai restaurant at this little town in
Mexico. I said, ``Why do you have this Thai restaurant? Because
we raise these prawns here.''
They are doing a phenomenal job of diversity down there
because they realize they have a real problem with the citizens
of that State and they have got to provide jobs. It is
something that I am very cognizant of because you have made it
indelible in my mind that we have to do something down there
and not just run away and leave the situation.
exotic pest and disease outbreaks
Miss Kaptur. I thank you for listening to our conversation
last year, Mr. Secretary. I know we have talked with Gus
Shumacher at the Department and others. We shouldn't leave this
up to only AID, which knows almost nothing about agriculture.
We ought to work directly with USDA to try to reposition; you
have some friends up here in Congress who would want to help
you do that. We thank you for being open to it.
Dr. Reed, I wanted to go back to the issue of APHIS. You
have such an important job.
We have always had problems; anytime you cultivate plants,
you have pests. That is just the nature of living things. But
it seems to me that we have an unusually large number of
serious developing problems that are different than in past
years.
Could you give us some background and put the number of
outbreaks and the size of those outbreaks in context for us,
based on what you have found; and also submit for the record
the numbers of outbreaks in the various categories that I know
you have, some of the scientists in your area have? Could you
just talk to us more generally about what is happening in our
country as a result of trade with the outbreaks that we are
experiencing and how does that differ from the past?
Mr. Reed. I guess we could weave that into part of what we
are going to submit from the Department on the increase in
trade and the doubling and all of that.
We were surprised by the Asian Long-Horned Beetle. We were
looking for agricultural pests on agricultural products, and it
was coming in on the pallets. The pallets may have barbells,
heavy equipment, or other items, and we were focusing on cut
flowers and agricultural commodities instead of the packaging
materials. So we have to look at pathways that we hadn't
considered before.
We know that there are complicated and multiple pathways
out of the Caribbean into Florida.
There are innumerable things that threaten the United
States. Hog cholera is 90 miles away. If hog cholera gets here,
we can expect a $2 billion bill the first month and we can
forget about trading any pork in international markets.
The greatest impact, to give you the short answer, is we
have already eradicated a number of things that used to be
really important to us. When I first got out of veterinary
school, we were at the tail end of hog cholera eradication; it
has been gone for 25 years. If it comes back, between the size
of the farms and the way product moves in this country, it is
going to spread faster. The demographics of farms have changed.
countries posing the greatest pest and disease risk
Miss Kaptur. Are there certain countries that pose the
greatest risks to us and, if so, what are the top five?
Mr. Reed. It is kind of a matrix between the problem and
the country. For plant problems, we look to Asia and South
America as contributing to the United States' plant problems.
For animal problems, we look at South America and Europe as
having animal problems that we don't want to have here, either.
So it is kind of a matrix, but I will be glad to take a stab
and get you a list and a matrix of that.
Miss Kaptur. Have the number of pests increased, the number
of viruses, the number of living creatures?
Mr. Reed. Absolutely. We know things now that we didn't
know 15 years ago. BSE, first identified back in about 1985 is
a perfect example. BSE is a big problem. We don't want it. We
are aware of plant viruses and bacteria that we now know can
cause a problem for us. As Mr. Dunn said, we don't have any
tools in the tool box to get rid of these. We don't have a
treatment like we do for bacteria in humans or animals to treat
these diseases. We have more and more of these diseases coming
into the U.S. Plum Pox Virus, which is in Pennsylvania, has
been introduced into the United States for the first time.
Miss Kaptur. Where did that come from?
Mr. Reed. We know that it probably came from Europe and the
Mideast. How does it arrive here? It may be totally
unintentional. Citrus Canker, for example, can be carried on
workers' shoes, on equipment, on trucks that are moving back
and forth. It is microscopic.
We are into a very different ball game now than we were 5,
10, 25, 50 years ago. Plus the trade, just the sheer magnitude;
600 flights a day have been added to all the airlines. A lot of
those are cargo, a lot of those are international. That is in
addition to what is already here.
The airline industry is expanding. You go to San Francisco
and the terminal has doubled in size. Go to Dulles, it has
doubled in size from 2 years ago. All these places are bringing
incredible numbers of people and lots of products. That makes
the risk grow exponentially.
risk insurance fund
Miss Kaptur. Could I ask, at the WTO on the phytosanitary
standards and so forth, has there been any discussion of some
sort of a risk insurance fund that deals with bailing out
places that may be impacted by trade and assessing fees
associated with that trade? Have you ever gotten into that
discussion as opposed to just setting standards?
Mr. Reed. We have. Within Marketing and Regulatory
Programs, we have talked about the possibility of insurance
plans for producers against certain problems. One of the ones
that is near and dear to my heart is classical Swine Fever, Hog
Cholera; it would be nice if we had an insurance plan to
protect us from that disease.
We do talk about those issues and try to find alternate
ways to protect our agricultural producers. The user fee that
we have for Agricultural Quarantine Inspection is helpful. We
are adding a number of new people to keep the pest and disease
problems out of the U.S.
It is not enough just to be able to treat a problem when it
is here, but to keep it out of the U.S. That is why we are
focusing on ways to get our preclearance programs in other
countries so that people and products are free of agricultural
pests and diseases when they leave another port, before they
get here, and not just checked once they get here.
Miss Kaptur. Thank you.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you. I think we are getting close to
ordering the end of this hearing. Let's have Mr. Boyd. I know
that you had something.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.
Just to follow up on that line of questioning, I think the
State of Florida has currently identified between 35 and 40
separate pests that we are fighting now and that are having an
economic impact on our agricultural industry. That is just one
State. Many of those are indigenous to just our State. It is a
very serious problem.
commodity purchases
Ms. Merrigan, I have a copy of a letter here--I am not sure
whether you have seen it or not; it is dated March 8--to the
Secretary on the issue of the use of the Department's Bonus
Commodity Program in the purchase of commodities. It is our
belief that the current situation with fresh market tomatoes,
we have had an ongoing issue here with Mexico, that maybe that
program could be used to remove some of the fresh tomatoes,
keep them from being dumped, destroyed.
Have you seen that and what are your thoughts on it?
[The letter follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Merrigan. I have seen the letter. I have talked to
staff as recently as yesterday about where this request is. As
you know, the tomato, because it is such a perishable
commodity, has additional challenges that we don't face in some
other procurement situations. But the staff has been directed
to work on this as expeditiously as possible and to think
creatively as to ways we might be able to use the Florida
tomatoes.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, that is all that I have.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. I have one short question. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. How tall?
Mr. Farr. Within your time frame.
pest and disease pathways
Mr. Reed, I am really interested in this discussion we are
having on control of exotics. Have you ever considered perhaps
bringing in the scientists from these producing countries to
sit down with our scientists to figure out how these things are
transported and what we might do to prevent the importation? It
is in both interests.
When we learn about these exotics in this country, we get
mad at the host country. Is there a better, using our--it is
probably not rocket science; people can figure these things
out. Have you ever convened an international group of
scientists to make recommendations as to how we might better
manage these issues?
Mr. Reed. Yes, our sister agency, the Agricultural Research
Service and us--and you may know Dr. Dunkel comes from the
Agricultural Research Service and heads up our Plant Protection
and Quarantine Programs--work with international counterparts
to establish international standards. We go to international
meetings, international plant protection conventions, the North
American Plant Protection Organization, NAPPO, to participate
in international standard setting issues.
We have numerous bilaterals with countries that want to
move products in here and we want to move products there. So
there is a lot of international discussion.
Before the end of this year, we plan on having a specific
session to determine pathways for each port. As Mr. Dunn has
said, one size doesn't fit all. Different products from
different areas come into different places in the country. We
need to focus our efforts on what is going to give us the best
shot at finding what we are looking for, whether it is in New
York City, Detroit, or San Francisco. We will have some
specific pathway analysis done this year, and it will be done
with our friends at ARS.
Within the next few weeks, we will be convening with the
International Plant Protection Convention. We meet with them
yearly. These are the kinds of issues we discuss. It is
incredibly important to work these issues out with the
international scientists so we know about potential pest and
disease entry points.
Mr. Farr. Is there any explanation of your kind of war on
bugs that we could use as a primer?
Mr. Dunn. We can get you some things, Mr. Farr. We have
just put out a Safeguarding American Agriculture on our plant
side with 300 recommendations of things that we need to do.
This was something that was sponsored by APHIS. We had members
of academia and members of the industry to work on these 300
recommendations.
Dr. Dunkel is in the process of prioritizing those and
costing them out, so you will probably see them next year in
budget requests, because it becomes imperative that we do that.
Dr. Dunkel is the Chair of the North American Plant Protection
Organization. He will be hosting the meeting in San Diego,
upcoming meeting of the NAPPO, to look at this.
On the animal side, Dr. Torres, who is our chief veterinary
officer, meets with the Office of Epizoics, International
Office of Epizoics, and they do a similar type of thing. I have
asked him to prepare a similar type of--safeguarding-things
recommendations for us on the animal side. This is becoming a
larger and larger issue, and something that I feel it is urgent
that we begin getting our arms around.
Mr. Farr. I agree. Thank you.
Mr. Skeen. Miss Kaptur.
bonus purchases
Miss Kaptur. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask
Administrator Merrigan, you have section 32 funds that you can
use for commodity purchases. There is about $400 million a
year, as I am looking at this budget that provides for regular
commodity purchases for use in school lunch programs; but you
can use authority up to $300 million a year for bonus buys.
According to the budget justification that came up to us,
you are asking, USDA plans to use only $115 million of its $300
million in bonus authority both this year and next year. Are
those figures correct? And if they are, why wouldn't the
Department want to use the full $300 million in view of the
surpluses overhanging our markets?
Ms. Merrigan. My understanding is that those numbers vary
because of different marketing conditions. With your
permission, I would defer to our Associate Administrator, Ken
Clayton, who really follows that program on a day-to-day basis.
Miss Kaptur. I thank you for that.
Mr. Clayton. Miss Kaptur, I will just lean over here.
As Ms. Merrigan was indicating, the Bonus Reserve, as it is
often referred to, is a fund which we use really depending on
market conditions. So the numbers you see in the budget were
sort of a best guess at the time the budget was formulated and
sent forward, certainly subject to revision as you work through
the process.
I know committee staff and Department staff work to
communicate on current status. By definition, it will change
over time because it absolutely does depend on market
conditions faced by producers and where we are called upon to
utilize the funds. That will vary as we move through time.
Miss Kaptur. Again, I just want to say with the surpluses
in our marketplace, I really think we ought to look at those
numbers and see if we can't use those full authorities this
year and probably next year.
We have left Mr. Baker kind of off the hook here today. He
has been kind of quiet. We always like to hear from him. He
does such an excellent job.
Mr. Skeen. That is against his nature, too.
Miss Kaptur. He has had a tough morning here.
Mr. Skeen. He is a survivor.
anticompetitive monitoring
Miss Kaptur. I wanted to ask GIPSA's responsibilities on--
anticompetitive monitoring of the marketplace and so forth
involving all types of livestock, poultry. Could you describe
for the committee some of the examples of the more onerous
practices that you have found in the last few years in your
responsibilities, please?
Mr. Baker. You are probably referring to things like
collusion, turn-taking in the marketplace.
Just last year, we saw a major packer retaliate against a
small feed yard operator. We will take that packer to task this
year. When they retaliated, the packer pulled their buyers out
of the feed yard. That will go to court. But the small and
medium-size producers in this country are really in fear of
losing market access. We have shifted a major part of our focus
in Packers and Stockyards into making sure that that market
access is there for the small and medium-size producers.
There are numerous actions that we have taken. Many deal
with producers who are harmed in some fashion--whether it is in
the financial area, they fail to get paid; whether it is just
by fraudulent or unfair trade practices.
You had indicated earlier in your question, you would like
to know how much of your budget is for the small and medium-
size producers. I would have to sit here before you and say 90-
something percent of ours is directed at that area.
The biggest challenge we see in the industry today is
structural change in the industry. The runaway train in the
industry that has already left the station is this structural
change. It is contracting and people trying to gain market
access--maybe through a form of contracting or an alliance.
This is where our people are gearing up to meet these
structural changes in the industry.
Electronic sales, it is unreal how many Internet sales are
already out there. By and large, most of the people that are
running the Internet sales have no concept of livestock
marketing in this country. They have no concept of the Packers
and Stockyards rules that they have to comply with. When we
discover one, it is not like you just write them a letter and
tell them about the rules. You have to actually go and make
sure that they are following the provisions of the Packers and
Stockyards Act.
But this structural change is dynamic. It is changing the
face of agriculture. If you talk about the grain side a little
bit, there is the biotech issue. Also under the biotech, what
we are trying to do is to focus in on the testing procedures
and the equipment that is being used to make sure that the
farmers that grow the biotech crops know the value of those
crops, that there is a standardized process of measuring and
valuing those crops instead of just the word-of-mouth
assessment. We are trying to put some standardization to it.
That is what we have asked for. Regarding your original
question, we consider 90 percent of our budget is for the small
and medium-size producers.
Miss Kaptur. I hope in the written record you will
elaborate a bit on how in the processing side you are working
to keep access open to farmers, as you have stated here,
because I know that is quite a challenge in many places around
this country. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the remaining witnesses
could discuss in terms of small and medium-size farmers
administratively, or in this budget submission, what are they
doing particularly to help them survive in this marketplace.
Ms. Merrigan. I just jotted a quick list of things down
which I will go through.
I do want to concur with your assessment that we do need to
do more. I want to take that message home to the troops and
very seriously do an inventory of AMS programs to see where we
might do better.
Miss Kaptur. Thank you.
Ms. Merrigan. Let me start. In our budget proposal we have
a number of items for organic agriculture. We have found that
87 percent of organic farmers are small or moderate-size
farmers, mostly family farmers. Anything we can do to help
support this industry, I think is important for small farmers.
In particular, we have a budget item of $639,000 to pay for the
first rounds of accreditation that USDA will do for the
certifying agents. I think if we were able to find appropriated
funds for that, we will go a long way in making sure that
farmers out there, small farmers, won't suffer onerous fees.
The FSMIP program--we have a budget increase request for
$300,000 for this program. I think this is a win-win program.
We do work with State departments of agriculture and, more
recently, with community-based organizations to fund small
amounts of money, on cutting-edge marketing, alternative
strategies, mostly dedicated to small farmers and sustainable
agriculture. It is a very small program with a very big bang to
it.
Procurement policies--we are the home of procurement for
the school lunch program. I think we need to think more
creatively in that avenue. We did a very exciting project this
last year in the State of Florida, where we worked with some
farmers to sell directly to schools; looking at that as a model
and perhaps doing more of that is something that I am very
interested in.
Mandatory price reporting--we have a budget item in that. A
lot of the producers, farmers that I deal with, say that they
need more market information. One of the challenges we are
going to face in implementing this program--I know Under
Secretary Dunn talks about this all the time--is making sure
that the information that comes from that program is actually
usable and that small and moderate-size farmers really can make
sense of the marketing environment that they are in. Once this
program is in place, it will let us move forward.
Farmers markets--I take your challenge very seriously. I
think we need to do more and think more about how farmers
markets can help be a haven for small and moderate-size
farmers.
Direct marketing on the Web--we have some work going on. It
is at, I would say, the incubator stage in our direct marketing
team, but we really are looking to do farmer-to-farmer sales
and interesting marketing arrangements on the Internet, which
is a growing market for everybody, I guess.
SARE partnership--the amount of money that you provided
last year, in the appropriations budget, to allow AMS to
partner with the SARE, the Sustainable Ag Research and
Education Program under RE&E, to provide grants to small
farmers to do direct marketing research projects on their
farms, is very important.
Contracting--we have a proposed rule out currently--the
comment period closes tomorrow--on forward contracting in
dairy, where Congress directed us to do a pilot study. What we
are proposing is that when farmers engage in forward contracts
in dairy under this pilot program that there be a 3-day right
of rescission, that farmers have a 3-day cooling off period, if
you will, so they can check with their tax attorneys or lawyers
to make sure that the contract is really what they want to
engage in; and that they be given a disclosure sheet of what
those contracts really mean to them.
Those kinds of protections, to level the playing field in
contracting, in the contracting environment that we are in, I
think are very important; that, I think, is the beginning of
what AMS should be doing.
Regarding outreach, we have a very important meeting coming
up in Memphis, Tennessee, in April. It is our Small Farmer
Outreach Conference. We did one last year; we are going to do
two this year, one in Memphis and one in California, where we
bring in farmers from surrounding States, we actually provide
them scholarships so it is a no-cost situation for small
resource constrained farmers. We have a program of all the
different things that USDA can do to help them.
In this upcoming meeting in Memphis, we actually have a war
room set up where we have people from AMS and FSA and all the
various agencies, NRCS, and farmers can go in and talk about
their individual problems. I think we need to do more of that,
bring our programs out to the field.
Finally, I do have a person in my immediate office who has
been one of the key staffers in putting together and
facilitating the Small Farm Commission that the Secretary
recently appointed. We plan on continuing that partnership. I
am hoping that body will continue to bring expertise and
creative ideas to the Department.
That is a short list. It is, again, something that with the
accelerating loss of small and moderate-size farmers in this
country, while I think it is a very impressive list, when we
look at the statistics, we know we need to do more; and we are
committed to that.
Miss Kaptur. Thank you. I couldn't let this moment go by,
when you mentioned contracting, without acknowledging Mr.
Baker's tremendous work in trying to get information out that
farmers can use--on contracting in the poultry industry, for
example, as well as the price reporting that he has worked so
very hard on. I just think he has done a tremendous job there.
small farmers
Mr. Reed. Congresswoman, if I could address your question
on small farmers.
Miss Kaptur. I would appreciate that.
Mr. Reed. You will find that APHIS programs probably deal
less with big industry and more with small farmers than most
programs. Pests and diseases hit these small producers and
farmers, whether they have wheat fields, citrus groves, hog
farms, or are trying to raise tomatoes. APHIS is working with
States at the producer level.
I was in Michigan last week. I talked to two dairymen; they
are milking 68 head. They are worried about tuberculosis
getting into their herds from native wild deer. So APHIS--both
Veterinary Services and Plant Protection and Quarantine work to
protect plants and animals, but there is a public health
component addressed by Wildlife Services, too.
You know of our efforts in Ohio. You know the value we have
placed on preventing the spread of rabies. This is not only a
small producer, but a public health problem that we need to get
a handle on before we have to come back and ask for a control
measure that is 35 miles wide and 1,500 miles long to keep
rabies from getting into mid-America. It is on Ohio's eastern
border right now.
Miss Kaptur. It has spread west from Pennsylvania, then?
Mr. Reed. Yes, and West Virginia. We know it is coming
across the mountains. Our services not only benefit just
producers, but the general public.
All of us are committed to making sure that the small
farmers, who are least able to deal with big disease problems,
are compensated fairly and promptly. Last year when we started
making payments on pseudorabies, instead of letting these guys
sit for a month or 6 weeks, like normal, we were able to pay
them in 48 hours. I guarantee you that as a former farmer
myself, having the check after your barns have been cleaned out
and you don't have any way to produce anything, it is pretty
nice to have that check in 2 days as opposed to waiting a
couple of months. We push hard for that.
Mr. Dunn. Miss Kaptur, I really appreciate this question,
because I think it really gets to the heart of why we are even
here, all of us. It is to help those family-size operators.
They are the ones that need help the most.
I think--you talk about passion. When I listen to Secretary
Glickman talk about what we are supposed to be doing, I don't
know of anybody that gets more passionate about targeting our
resources to those family-size operators and saying we have got
to do more, we have to reduce this tide of losing family
farmers out there.
He put together the Small Farms Advisory Group. He had
asked Deputy Secretary Rominger to head that up, and we have a
number of initiatives that are department-wide that we are
going on there. What I would suggest is, this is now in Under
Secretary Gonzalez's shop, where coordination of small farm
operations resides, but it is not his alone. We all have a part
in that, and we all have an obligation to fund it and go
forward.
What I would suggest to Mr. Kaplan is that we put together
a crosscut on the small farms budget and bring it up here to
show you where the Department as a whole has in fact zeroed in
on that need.
Mr. Baker did not talk about the things that we are doing.
We are meeting with State departments of agriculture and State
attorneys general, as well as our general counsel, along with
the Department of Justice, to talk about compensation and fair
trade practices, to talk about contracting that Kathleen had
talked about, in talking about mandatory price reporting
because many of the States are going forward with that. The
bottom line is, is that really helping the farmer?
During our Outlook Conference, I had a farmer get up there
at noontime and say, I am drowning in data and I am starving
for information. So what we have to do is make sure that the
information we are providing gets to that person and is in a
usable form so that they can be successful in their operation.
That is the challenge for us.
I appreciate you all asking that question because I think
that is what we should all be about.
Miss Kaptur. I thank you for that, Mr. Under Secretary,
very much. I know we all went over the time, but the subject is
important. They deserve that on the record here in our Nation's
Capital. I am glad you are all thinking that way.
I think it would be very interesting to take a look at a
cross-cutting budget across that Department, trying to position
the small and medium-size farmers in this economy, because if
you look at the distribution of the AMTA payments last year and
the emergency assistance, it certainly didn't go there. I think
the Secretary recognizes that in the testimony he provided us
this year, to see the change administratively and budgetwise,
as we approach the new fiscal year, would be most helpful to
us. We thank you very much for that.
That will be my last round of questioning, but I believe
Mr. Boyd has a question.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd. I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman. I just want
to follow up on the theme that Miss Kaptur has pursued here.
Dr. Reed, I will give you an example. In answering a
question earlier, you talked about the Asian foreign beetle
which came in in wood products. My question really has to do
with what is it that we can do--I mean, what should this
Congress do statutorily to help you better do your job fighting
invasive pests? You may have touched on it earlier. There has
been some mention about the Canady bill, but I wasn't sure of
your feelings about that. I am throwing you a little softball
here now, to tell us what you think we can do as a group to
help you better do your job.
Mr. Reed. We need the Plant Protection Act passed.
Mr. Boyd. The Canady legislation?
Mr. Reed. Yes.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Was that your telling blow?
Mr. Boyd. That's it.
Mr. Skeen. I just want to say thank you to you folks. This
morning's topic is tremendously important, having come from an
agricultural background of my own. Right off the bat, it is the
only business I know of that when you buy, everything you buy
is retail and when you sell, everything you sell you sell
wholesale. As merchandisers will tell you, that ain't the way
to go.
You folks have a tough, tough job, and you do it well. We
appreciate the kind of expertise that you provide, the ordeal
that you go through, plus coming up with the necessary funding.
Together we have a good system in the United States. We can
argue about it, how best to serve it, but it works. You folks
do that. Thank you very much. The questions from the panel were
great today.
I want to say, too, about the Screwworm thing. I was
involved at the very beginning of that program. I will tell you
one thing, you lose your appetite for rice pudding. I will say
no more.
I hope that we do get the station installed in Panama so
that we can control that insect from the Southern and Northern
Hemisphere as well.
Thank you all very much. Have a good day.
[The following questions were submitted to be answered for
the record:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Baker, J.R....................................................... 461
Dewhurst, Stephen................................................ 1
Dunn, M.V........................................................ 461
Kaplan, Dennis................................................... 461
Lyons, J.R....................................................... 1
Merrigan, Kathleen............................................... 461
Reed, C.A........................................................ 461
Reed, P.S........................................................ 1
Sells, D.R....................................................... 1
York, Dana....................................................... 1
I N D E X
----------
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Page
Accountability................................................... 201
Accountability Systems........................................... 243
Administration's Position on Voluntary Conservation.............. 50
Agricultural Issues in California................................ 51
Air Quality Task Forces.......................................... 134
Alternate Sources of Assistance.................................. 282
American Conservation in the New Century......................... 2
American Heritage Rivers Initiative............................184, 275
Animal Agriculture............................................... 186
Animal Feeding Operations......................................238, 298
Animal Feeding Operations Technical Assistance................... 190
Animal Waste and Water Quality Management Issues................. 248
Aquaculture in New England....................................... 301
Backyard Conservation............................................ 191
Biomass Products Initiative...................................... 143
Biographies:
Undersecretary Lyons......................................... 21
Chief Reed................................................... 43
Associate Chief Sells........................................ 44
Dana D. York, Acting Budget Director, NRCS................... 45
Budget Request Breakdown......................................... 173
CCC Funding Shortfall............................................ 47
Centers and Institutes........................................... 152
Clean Water Action Plan.......................................... 207
Clean Water Rules and Agriculture................................ 6
Common Computing Environment..................................... 287
Community/Federal Information Partnership......................144, 286
Concern About Regulations........................................ 115
Conservation Challenges.......................................... 3
Conservation Compliance and Conservation Operations.............. 149
Conservation Easements........................................... 138
Conservation for the Entire Landscape............................ 114
Conservation Incentives.......................................... 53
Conservation Program Activities.................................. 153
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP):
Conservation Reserve Program................................. 275
Expansion..................................................104, 207
Suspension................................................... 251
CRP Technical Assistance Availability........................ 137
Potential for CRP Enrollment................................. 105
Proposed CRP Expansion....................................... 104
Conservation Security Program:
Conservation Security Program vs. Conservation Farm Option... 246
Request...............................................111, 139, 203
Staffing..................................................... 207
Customer Base.................................................... 281
Development of Farmland vs. Non-Farmland......................... 205
Earth Team Volunteers............................................ 177
Easements........................................................ 52
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP):
Distribution of EQIP Funds................................... 187
Environmental Quality Incentives Program Funding............. 134
EQIP Allocations............................................. 178
EQIP Expansion............................................... 209
EQIP Priority Areas.......................................... 183
Excessive Cropland Erosion....................................... 105
Explanatory Notes................................................ 303
Farmland Loss.................................................... 190
Farmland Protection.............................................. 111
Farmland Protection Program (FPP):
Farmland Protection Program.................................. 283
Farmland Protection Program Funding.......................... 133
FPP Expansion................................................ 209
Federal Regulations for Agriculture.............................. 142
Federal Reimbursements........................................... 202
Federal Return for Payments...................................... 52
Florida Staff Year Increase...................................... 102
Flood Plain Easements............................................ 201
Forest Management Plans........................................130, 262
Forest Planning Rule Comments.................................... 131
Forestry Incentives Program (FIP):
Comparison of FIP/SIP Appropriations......................... 177
Forestry Incentives Program Emergency Funds.................. 190
Forest Service Access and Road Construction...................... 102
Global Climate Change............................................ 298
Grazing Lands.................................................... 249
Grazing Land Conservation Initiative:
Accomplishments for GLCI..................................... 185
Grazing Land Conservation Initiative......................... 174
History Table for FY 2001........................................ 176
Increase in Federal Regulations.................................. 259
International Assignments........................................ 181
International Relations.......................................... 289
Irrigation/Pond Construction Assistance.......................... 258
Land Stewardship on Private Lands................................ 3
Legal Liability of NRCS Operations............................... 132
Limiting Urban Expansion......................................... 280
Local Government Conservation Programs........................... 279
Long Range View of Agriculture and the Environment............... 145
Loss of Agricultural and Forestland.............................. 4
National Conservation Forum...................................... 5
National Conservation Forum and Summit........................... 116
National Forest System Payments to States and Counties........... 140
National Resources Inventory...................................189, 299
National Soil Information System................................. 155
National Summit on Private Lands Conservation.................... 277
Net Losses of Wetlands........................................... 5
Object Class Breakouts.........................................193, 203
Opening Remarks by Undersecretary Lyons.......................... 2
Other Budget Proposals........................................... 143
Personnel Actions................................................ 206
Plant Materials Centers:
Fiscal Year 1999 Plant Releases.............................. 157
Plant Materials Centers...................................... 155
Plant Materials Centers Operating Costs...................... 156
Plant Materials Centers Operated by Cooperating Agencies..... 156
Preserving Arable Land........................................... 111
Private Sector Conservation Leadership........................... 133
Proposed Language Changes........................................ 205
Questions Submitted for the Record:
Mr. Farr..................................................... 302
Mr. Kingston................................................. 258
Mr. Skeen.................................................... 147
Ms. DeLauro.................................................. 301
Ms. Emerson.................................................. 259
Ms. Kaptur................................................... 277
Regional Offices and Technical Institutes........................ 239
Regional Project Allocations..................................... 172
Regulation and Property Rights................................... 50
Regulation of Total Maximum Daily Loads by EPA................... 49
Representing Agriculture's Position on Clean Water Rules......... 58
Reprogramming Funds.............................................. 137
Resolving Clean Water and Clean Air Challenges................... 138
Resource Conservation and Development Program (RC&D):
Applications...............................................183, 240
Applicant Areas.............................................. 294
Loan Status.................................................. 170
Resource Conservation and Development......................167, 302
RC&D Federal and Non-Federal Assistance...................... 167
RC&D Measures Adopted, Planned, and Completed................ 168
Resources and Policy to Address Farm-Suburban-Urban Conservation. 113
Section 11 Cap..................................................48, 209
Service Center Modernization Plan................................ 294
Soil Erosion Status.............................................. 4
Soil Surveys:
Funding and Staffing of Soil Surveys......................... 181
Soil Surveys...............................................154, 181
Soil Surveys Reimbursements.................................. 155
Stopping Farmland Conversion..................................... 140
Staffing:
Current Year Staffing........................................ 46
Hiring....................................................... 248
Staffing..................................................... 149
Staffing Change.............................................. 46
Staff Needed for Program Implementation...................... 145
Staff Reductions............................................. 281
Staff Year Summary........................................... 177
Staff Year Table............................................. 150
State and Local Contributions.................................... 152
Supplemental for Technical Assistance............................ 47
Technical Assistance:
Additional Local Level Technical Assistance.................. 101
All Conservation Programs.................................... 153
CCC Funded Technical Assistance.............................. 296
Farm Bill Programs........................................... 48
Fiscal Year 2001 Technical Assistance Priority............... 47
FY 2001...................................................... 46
Improving the Focus of Technical Assistance.................. 102
Increase Conservation Technical Assistance................... 111
Shortfall.................................................... 202
Source of Technical Assistance in FY 2001.................... 49
Technical Service Centers and Regional Offices and Institutes..151, 152
Timber Sales on Federal Land..................................... 132
Timber Supply Correction......................................... 145
Total Maximum Daily Load........................................58, 259
2001 Conservation Initiative..................................... 5
Urban Conservation............................................... 191
Urban Resources Partnership (URP):
Authorization................................................ 60
Authority to Conduct URP..................................... 99
Funding History.............................................. 179
Program Audit................................................ 59
Urban Resources Partnership...........................183, 201, 210
URP, Heritage Rivers, and Pacific Salmon Expenditures........ 134
USDA's Response to URP Audit................................. 89
Urban Sprawl..................................................... 2, 51
USDA Conservation Leadership..................................... 132
USDA's Position on EPA Clean Water Rule.......................... 54
USDA's Position on Proposed Water Quality Rules.................. 104
USDA Support for Property Owners................................. 50
Using Sound Science to Assess Agriculture Changes................ 144
Voluntary and Mandatory Programs................................. 139
Voluntary and Regulatory Rules for Conservation.................. 49
Voluntary Preservation of Farmland............................... 142
Water Quality Incentives......................................... 171
Water Quality Protection......................................... 51
Water Resources Responsibilities................................. 282
Watersheds:
Current Status of P.L. 534 Projects.......................... 162
Deaauthorized Small Watershed Projects....................... 129
Emergency Watershed Protection Program....................... 164
New Watershed Construction Projects Started in FY 1998-2000.. 164
Restoration Strategies....................................... 189
Pilot Rehabilitation......................................... 252
P.L. 566 Small Watershed Program............................. 263
Reduced Funding for Small Watersheds......................... 129
Rehabilitation of Watershed Structures....................... 290
Small Watershed Program Backlog.............................. 116
State and Local Funding of Watershed Planning Activities...161, 192
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Unobligated
Balanced................................................... 163
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Loans.............. 239
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Loans Program...... 293
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Reimbursements..... 166
Watershed Restoration Strategies............................. 189
Wetland Determinations........................................... 181
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP):
Wetlands Reserve Program..................................... 147
Wetlands Reserve Program Expansion........................... 208
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Progam (WHIP) Expansion.............. 209
Working Together on Conservation Issues.......................... 114
Written Testimony:
Statement of James R. Lyons.................................. 8
Statement of Pearlie S. Reed................................. 23
Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Biography, Under Secretary Michael V. Dunn....................... 497
FY 2001 Budget Request........................................... 463
Opening Remarks.................................................. 461
User Fee Legislation............................................. 561
Witness Statement, Under Secretary Michael V. Dunn............... 466
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection:
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection, General...........676, 679, 685
Fee Schedule by Activity..................................... 637
Funding and FTE's by Airport................................. 635
Number of Staff Years Funded................................. 634
User Fees.................................................... 685
Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement................... 671
Animal Care:
Animal Care, General......................................... 624
Animal Welfare........................................596, 620, 704
Doris Day Annual League...................................... 676
Residential Breeders of Cats and Dogs........................ 694
Animal Health Emergency Management............................... 680
Animal Import Centers..........................................664, 677
Argentine Citrus................................................. 683
Asian Longhorned Beetle........................................561, 680
Biography, Administrator, Craig A. Reed.......................... 525
Biotechnology.................................................... 666
Boll Weevil:
Boll Weevil, General..................................687, 710, 712
Funding...................................................... 630
Brown Citrus Aphid............................................... 669
Brucellosis...............................................625, 677, 681
Carryover Funds.................................................. 674
Cattle Ticks...................................................596, 638
Citrus Canker..................................................689, 698
Compensation Losses.............................................. 695
Contingency Funds................................................ 663
Countries Posting the Greatest Pest and Disease Risk............. 607
Emergency Authority.............................................. 654
Emergency Funding................................................ 701
Emergency Management Operations Center........................... 687
Emergency Management System...................................... 703
Explanatory Notes................................................ 960
Equine Infectious Anemia Program................................. 670
Exotic Pests and Diseases........................................ 562
Exotic Pest and Disease Outbreaks................................ 606
Federal/Non-Federal Dollars...................................... 661
Feral Hogs....................................................... 593
Foot-and-Mouth Disease........................................... 626
Foreign Animal Disease Awareness................................. 672
Foreign Animal Disease Outbreaks................................. 696
Foreign Pests and Diseases....................................... 697
Fumigation....................................................... 683
Glassy-winged Sharpshooter....................................... 603
Grasshopper/Mormon Cricket....................................... 690
History of Budget Request........................................ 668
Illegal Importations............................................. 686
Illegal Importation of Plant and Wood Products................... 700
Import/Export and Veterinary Diagnostics User Fees............... 666
Imported Fire Ant..............................................646, 675
Institute for International Cooperation in Animal Biologics...... 672
Institute for Wildlife Damage Economics.......................... 696
Integrated Systems Acquisition Project........................... 632
International Programs........................................... 667
International Trade.............................................. 562
Invasive Species................................................. 564
Johne's Disease.................................................. 680
Karnal Bunt...................................................... 643
Kudzu............................................................ 677
Mediterranean Fruit Fly........................................626, 685
Narrowband Radios................................................ 708
National Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance............... 644
National Center for Import-Export................................ 677
National Germplasm Quarantine Center............................. 645
National Monitoring and Residue Analysis Laboratory.............. 671
National Poultry Improvement Plan................................ 672
National Rabies Management Plan.................................. 670
Noxious Weeds.................................................... 629
Outbreaks of Pests and Diseases.................................. 647
Overseas Locations............................................... 659
Pest and Disease Control......................................... 695
Pest and Disease Pathways........................................ 612
Pierce's Disease................................................. 597
Pine Shoot Beetle................................................ 671
Pink Bollworm..................................................663, 688
Pseudorabies..............................................598, 627, 680
Regulatory Activities............................................ 604
Regulatory Enforcement and Animal Care........................... 623
Risk Analysis and Safeguarding................................... 696
Risk Insurance Fund.............................................. 608
Questions Submitted for the Record:
Mr. Bonilla.................................................. 707
Mr. Dickey................................................... 705
Mr. Skeen.................................................... 620
Mrs. Emerson................................................. 712
Ms. Kaptur................................................... 695
Saltcedar Tree................................................... 674
Scrapie........................................................688, 693
Screwworm............................................561, 605, 626, 691
Shared Administrative Costs...................................... 680
Silverleaf Whitefly............................................665, 676
Small Farmers.................................................... 616
Swine Brucellosis................................................ 625
Trichinae Pilot Certification.................................... 669
Tropical Bont Tick............................................... 658
Trust Fund Agreements............................................ 682
Tuberculosis..................................................... 631
Veterinarian Shortage............................................ 704
User Fee Legislation............................................. 561
Wildlife Services:
Aerial Operations Safety..................................... 708
Aircraft Operations.......................................... 675
Brown Tree Snake............................................. 647
Budget.....................................................689, 691
Cormorants................................................... 705
Leadership Excellence Program................................ 707
National Environmental Policy Act............................ 705
Nonlethal Methods............................................ 679
Predator Control Program..................................... 677
Rabies Control.............................................690, 698
Rabies Wildlife Management Plan.............................. 709
Reduction.............................................595, 707, 709
Trap Testing................................................. 677
Wildlife Services, General.................................638, 687
Wolf Control................................................. 692
Wolf Reintroduction.......................................... 585
Written Statement, Administrator, Craig A. Reed.................. 498
Agricultural Marketing Service
ADP Purchases.................................................... 806
AMS Website...................................................... 830
Biography, Administrator, Kathleen Merrigan...................... 537
Business Process Reengineering................................... 786
Checkoff Programs................................................ 833
Class III Pricing................................................ 831
Cotton Programs.................................................. 833
Explanatory Notes................................................ 891
Farmer-Owned Cooperatives........................................ 829
Farmers Markets.................................................. 836
Federal Register................................................. 794
Federal Seed Act................................................. 794
Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program:
Payments to States and Possessions--1999 Grants.............. 776
Payments to States and Possessions--1999 Locations........... 794
Payments to States and Possessions--1999 State-by-State...... 775
Free Trade with Mexico........................................... 794
Grading:
Cotton and Tobacco Reimbursement............................. 805
Grading Activity Employee Totals............................. 785
Grading Fees................................................. 785
Hunts Point.................................................. 830
Qualified Through Verification Program....................... 807
Inspection and Certification of Equipment........................ 827
International Trade Prices and Volume............................ 824
Limitation on Administrative Expenses............................ 801
Local Producers Outlets.......................................... 591
Market News:
Breakout by Program and Increase Area........................ 779
Foreign Market Reporting Expenditures........................ 779
International Market Coverage................................ 780
Market News Consolidation or Elimination..................... 786
Report Status................................................ 780
Object Class--Organic Grown Fruits and Vegetables............ 720
Organic Products............................................. 719
Mandatory Price Reporting:
Budget Breakout.............................................. 727
Computer System.............................................. 731
Cost Object Class Breakout................................... 732
Explanatory Notes............................................ 728
Overview of Spending......................................... 725
Participation With Other Agencies............................ 731
Price Reporting.............................................. 598
Program Increase Object Class Breakout....................... 720
Proposed Rule................................................ 591
Proposed Rule Publication.................................... 733
Staff Years.................................................. 732
Marketing Agreements and Orders:
Peanut Non-Signer Program.................................... 805
Pistachio Marketing Order.................................... 806
Market Protection and Promotion.................................. 828
Microbiological Data Program:
Initiative................................................... 714
Budget Request............................................... 840
Object Classes............................................... 715
Pilot Program................................................ 714
Organic Certification:
Final Rule Publication....................................... 720
Implementation............................................... 718
Proposed Rule Update......................................... 716
Object Class Table........................................... 719
Organic Rule................................................. 602
Organic Seafood Standards.................................... 828
Program Information--Spending................................ 717
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act.......................... 800
Small Growers................................................ 831
Pesticide Data Program:
Accomplishments.............................................. 721
Budget Request............................................... 781
EPA Involvement.............................................. 586
Federal Funds................................................ 716
Funding Table................................................ 722
Object Class Breakout........................................ 724
Rapid Response............................................... 824
Registration and EPA......................................... 803
Resource Table--Cost and Staff Years......................... 724
Spending by Agency........................................... 825
Water Testing................................................ 782
Pesticide Data Programs Testing:
Pesticide Data Program Breakout.............................. 803
Microbiological Data Program................................. 804
Pesticide Data Program--Water Testing........................ 804
Pesticide Recordkeeping Program.................................. 804
Plant Variety Protection Act..................................... 806
Questions Submitted for the Record:
Mr. Skeen.................................................... 714
Mr. Bonilla.................................................. 833
Ms. Kaptur................................................... 835
Reports:
GAO Report Findings.......................................... 815
OIG Report Findings.......................................... 808
Status of OIG and GAO Reports................................ 816
Research and Promotion:
Assistance to Pork Producers................................. 818
Milk Products Report......................................... 831
Funding Received from FAS.................................... 793
OGC Legal Services........................................... 792
New Research and Promotion Programs.......................... 817
Pork Checkoff................................................ 595
Pork Producers Referendum.................................... 839
Referendum Schedule.......................................... 793
Research Cooperative Agreements.................................. 817
Section 32:
Bonus Purchases.............................................. 613
Commodity Purchases.......................................... 608
Commodity Purchases Increase Request......................... 837
Surplus Removal.............................................. 797
Disaster Relief.............................................. 796
Emergency Surplus Removal.................................... 796
Export Purchases............................................. 797
Table........................................................ 798
Shell Eggs....................................................... 829
Slotting Fees.................................................... 828
Small Farms...................................................... 825
Marketing.................................................... 835
Standardization Program.......................................... 783
Tobacco Funding.................................................. 784
Transportation Services:
Regulatory Actions........................................... 805
Wholesale Market Development:
Budget Request--Projects..................................... 790
Projects Status.............................................. 787
Santa Fe Area Farmers Market................................. 788
Witness Statement--AMS........................................... 488
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
ADP Hardware/Software Purchases.................................862-863
Aflatoxin Inspections............................................ 851
Anticompetitive Behavior......................................... 871
Anticompetitive Monitoring......................................614-615
Auction Market Failures.........................................853-854
Biography of Administrator Baker................................. 558
Biotechnology.................................................... 868
Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Foods....................884-885
Biotechnology Reference Facility................................. 869
Budget Increase.................................................. 870
Civil Rights....................................................865-866
Competition, Fair Trade Practices, Financial Protection.......... 857
Competitive Structures in Livestock and Poultry Industries....... 881
Competitive Structure of the Poultry Industry.....871-872, 886, 889-890
Complaints From Livestock Producers.............................. 842
Cooperative Research Agreements.................................879-880
Custodial Account Compliance Audits.............................. 857
Dealer Failures.................................................858-859
Dealer/Buyer Financial Failures.................................. 852
Econometric Models..............................................869-870
Economic/Statistical Analysis.................................... 858
Equipment........................................................ 865
Explanatory Notes.............................................1065-1106
Export Cargo Sampling Project.................................... 863
Exported Grain Complaints.......................................847-850
Final Rule......................................................878-879
Four Firm Concentration.........................................852-853
FY 2001 Budget Request........................................... 858
Genetically Modified Foods......................................876-878
GIPSA Certificates............................................... 857
Grain Dust Explosions............................................ 847
Grain Facilities................................................842-843
Grain Inspected and/or Weighted.................................843-846
H.R. 2829..............................................881-882, 887-889
IBP Case......................................................... 862
Information Staff................................................ 867
International Monitoring Program................................860-862
Livestock Slaughter.............................................854-855
Methods Development.............................................. 867
New User Fees.................................................... 875
Oat Standards.................................................... 772
Other Services..................................................864-865
Pesticide Data Program..........................................859-860
Poultry Complaints..............................................882-883
Poultry Compliance Complaints.................................... 851
Poultry Investigation Work......................................883-884
Poultry Legislation.............................................589-591
Production and Marketing Contracts............................... 870
Proposed Regulations--Feed Weighting............................863-864
Questions Submitted for the Record:
Mr. Skeen...................................................842-875
Mrs. Emerson................................................887-890
Ms. Kaptur..................................................876-886
Rapid Response Teams...................................872-874, 885-886
Select Elements in Grains........................................ 859
Slaughters/Processors Subject to the P & S Act..................855-856
Sufficient Authority............................................. 881
Swine Contract Library..........................................874-875
Texas Panhandle Investigation.................................... 864
Unrecovered Losses............................................... 859
U.S.-China Agreement............................................866-867
Value-Added Traits............................................... 868
Violation Cases--Grain........................................... 860
Violation Reports................................................ 851
Written Testimony of Administrator Baker........................538-557