- AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

[Senate Hearing 106-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004

----------

U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

[The following testimonies were received by the
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related
Agencies for inclusion in the record. The submitted materials
relate to the fiscal year 2004 budget request for programs
within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]

Prepared Statement of the Ad Hoc Coalition

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, this statement is
respectfully submitted on behalf of the ad hoc coalition \1\ composed
of the organizations listed below. The coalition supports sustained
funding for Title I of Public Law 480 at a baseline level that will
ensure the continued viability of the program as a long-term food aid
and market development initiative for American agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ad hoc coalition is composed of American Maritime Congress,
American Soybean Association, Liberty Maritime Corporation, Maritime
Institute for Research and Industrial Development, National Association
of Wheat Growers, National Barley Growers Association, National Corn
Growers Association, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National
Sunflower Association, Sealift, Inc., TECO Transport Corporation,
Transportation Institute, USA Rice Federation, U.S. Canola Association,
U.S. Wheat Associates, Inc., Wheat Export Trade Education Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This statement is submitted at a critical time when anticipated
worldwide requirements for American food assistance are extremely high,
and are likely to grow substantially higher in the coming weeks and
months. At least 30 million people are at risk of starvation in
Southern and Eastern Africa through the end of September of this year.
In the immediate aftermath of hostilities in Iraq, the United States
could be required to replace the commodities previously distributed to
23 million people under the oil for food program. In his State of the
Union Address, President Bush celebrated our commitment to provide one-
half of worldwide food aid needs on a sustained basis. Unfortunately,
there is a strong likelihood that the United States will be unable to
meet this commitment without additional resources from Congress, both
for the remainder of fiscal year 2003 and through fiscal year 2004. In
the statement that follows, our coalition supports funding levels for
title I and other food aid programs that are needed to fulfill our
moral obligations and promote the long-term interests of American
agriculture.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF FOOD AID POLICY

Mr. Chairman, the coalition respectfully suggests that American
food assistance policy is well-established and founded on certain
guiding principles, including the following:
--Meeting America's humanitarian obligation to sustain food
assistance programs, U.S. participation in which should
constitute more than 50 percent of all food aid worldwide.
--Employing food assistance programs to promote long-term market
development for American agriculture on commercial terms.
--Employing food assistance programs to promote respect worldwide for
American values and our economic system, thereby enhancing
goodwill toward America among disadvantaged populations that
are breeding grounds for terrorism.

CURRENT FOOD AID PROGRAM LEVELS

Mr. Chairman, these principles of American food aid policy have
enjoyed broad, bipartisan support in Congress for many decades. Our
commitment to serve them has made the United States the world's leader
in providing food assistance, and has strengthened American agriculture
by supporting the development of long-term markets for U.S. products.
In recent years, however, food aid shipments have declined markedly. In
fiscal year 2000, the United States programmed more than 6.7 million
tons of food aid to 95 countries, consisting of 35 different
commodities with a commodity value of $1.4 billion. In fiscal year
2001, our food aid program declined to 6.36 million tons of assistance
to 45 countries, valued at $1.28 billion. The decline continued in
fiscal year 2002: In the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, the
United States programmed 4.67 million tons of food aid for shipment to
84 countries. This assistance consisted of 26 different products, with
a commodity value of $1.092 billion.
The administration's preliminary plan for the current fiscal year
provided for less than 3.85 million tons of food aid. In the
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, Congress appropriated an
additional $250 million for Public Law 480 Title II grants, and
provided that such funding would remain available until the end of
fiscal year 2004. Even with this emergency supplemental funding, the
total tonnage of commodities shipped in the current fiscal year likely
will be less than in fiscal year 2002. This would represent the third
straight year of reduced availability of critically needed U.S. food
aid.

THE ADMINISTRATION'S BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

For fiscal year 2004, the administration has requested
appropriations for the Food for Peace Title I program which would
support $132 million in direct loans. This represents a significant
reduction from that approved by Congress for the fiscal year 2003
program, which received subsidy budget authority sufficient to support
a direct loan program of $154.7 million. The combined request for the
Food for Peace Titles I and II would provide funding to support a
program level of 3.1 million metric tons of grain equivalent--a
reduction of 200,000 tons from the program level established for fiscal
year 2003 (which includes $135 million in carryover funding from prior
years). Also in fiscal year 2004, the administration's USDA Budget
Summary notes that the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust currently holds
approximately 2.0 million metric tons of wheat, of which up to 500,000
tons would be available to support Title II donations in response to
unanticipated needs for emergency assistance. The Title II program, as
noted above, will also be supplemented by $250 million in emergency
funding provided in the 2003 omnibus appropriations bill, to the extent
that any such funding remains available for obligation following the
emergency shipments required for the balance of the current fiscal
year.
As required by the 2002 Farm Bill, the administration has announced
that it will meet the annual minimum tonnage level of 400,000 metric
tons for that portion of the Food for Progress program carried out with
CCC funding. Under authority provided by section 416(b) of the
Agricultural Act of 1949, the administration estimates that surplus
nonfat dry milk will be made available for donation in fiscal year
2004, with the value of assistance and associated costs estimated at
$118 million. This represents another sharp reduction in donations
under the 416(b) program, which is CCC-funded. Finally, the McGovern-
Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program
(``IFEP''), under terms of the 2002 Farm Bill, will be funded in fiscal
year 2004 by direct appropriations. The administration's request is $50
million, which represents a 50 percent reduction in the CCC-funded
program level for fiscal year 2003.

RESTORATION OF FOOD AID PROGRAMMING

Mr. Chairman, the coalition urges that food aid be restored to
sustainable levels in the range of 6.0 million to 7.0 million metric
tons of grain equivalent in each fiscal year, beginning in fiscal year
2004. In fiscal year 2004, this would require an increase in Title I
baseline funding, along with greater use of existing authorities of the
Commodity Credit Corporation, as recommended by the Conference on the
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003.
The baseline for the Food for Peace Title II program has been
increased from $850 million in fiscal year 2002 to $1.185 billion in
fiscal year 2004. The coalition commends Congress and the
administration for this initiative, which represents an increase of
nearly 40 percent in Title II baseline funding. This action underscores
the importance of the Title II donation program, and the coalition
strongly supports the administration's Title II request.
The Title I program, however, must also be restored to reasonable
levels if the United States is to take full advantage of the unique
market-development potential of this historic initiative. The special
features of the Title I program are important to American agriculture
and remain a significant element of U.S. food aid policy, as discussed
below.

ADVANTAGES OF THE TITLE I PROGRAM

Mr. Chairman, the Title I program offers countries long-term loans
and concessional payment terms for the purchase of U.S. agricultural
commodities. As such, Title I has advantages over other food aid
programs.
--Resource Efficient.--Because Title I is a concessional loan
program, appropriations required to support Title I, under the
terms of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, cover only the
subsidy cost, and not the full commodity value. In the
President's budget for fiscal year 2004, the subsidy cost of
the Title I program is established for the fiscal year at 78.90
percent. Thus, under the Title I program, Congress ships $1.00
worth of U.S. agricultural products at an appropriated cost of
about 79 cents. Moreover, Title I currently recovers more
dollars for the U.S. Treasury in loan repayments than it costs
in annual outlays.
--GATT-Legal.--The Title I program promotes market development while
remaining fully sanctioned by international trade
organizations. The high degree of concessionality of Title I
has resulted in its classification as a donation program for
GATT purposes.
--Commercial Sales Stepping Stone.--The Title I program is designed
to operate in markets which are neither poor enough to warrant
donations nor rich enough to purchase commodities on commercial
terms. Over the decades, numerous countries have graduated from
Title I partners to commercial markets for a broad range of
U.S. agricultural products. In fact, 43 of the top 50 consumer
nations of American agricultural products were once recipients
of U.S. foreign aid in some form. Tomorrow's commercial
commodity markets are today's Title I partners.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. Chairman, the coalition is committed to maintaining U.S. food
assistance programs at responsible levels in order to meet humanitarian
needs and promote the interests of American agriculture. Our
recommendation is to maintain annual shipments of food assistance at
program levels of between 6.0 million and 7.0 million metric tons of
grain equivalent. This can be accomplished, as in the past, with a
blend of programs supported by direct appropriations and by CCC program
authorities.
The administration proposes funding for Title I which would support
a direct loan level of $132 million. This is well below the
appropriation for fiscal year 2003, which supports new direct loans of
$154.7 million. Our coalition opposes the continued erosion of the
Title I program, and strongly believes, as demonstrated above, that
Title I funding should be restored to levels which will ensure the
program's long-term viability as a flexible and significant policy
initiative.
The coalition recommends the following:
--Title I program levels should be increased in fiscal year 2004, and
responsibly increased again in succeeding years, so that the
unique advantages of the program, highlighted above, are not
lost.
--The fiscal year 2003 program level of $100 million for the
McGovern-Dole IFEP should be maintained in fiscal year 2004.
This action, together with full funding of the administration's
Title II request, would help ensure that the United States
fulfills its moral obligation to provide not less than one-half
of the world's food aid in fiscal year 2004.
--In committee report language, the House Appropriations Committee
should restate its directive to the administration to make
greater use of existing CCC authorities to expand food aid to
regions in critical need.
Mr. Chairman, American farmers require strong commercial markets to
maintain their share of world agricultural trade. These markets are
initially developed and often revitalized by Title I concessional
sales. This program, which has been a bulwark of American food aid
policy since the days of the Marshall Plan, deserves the strong support
of your subcommittee, the Congress and the entire nation.
The Title I program delivers more food assistance per dollar of
investment than any other program. The Title I program, moreover, is
fully consistent with the administration's position that aid to
developing countries be tied to their adoption of reforms and policies
that make development both lasting and effective.
With strong Congressional support, the Food for Peace Title I
program will continue to promote American commercial interests and
humanitarian values. The funding of Title I, accordingly, should be
increased to ensure that this historic program is restored to its
proper place in U.S. food assistance policy.
______

Prepared Statement of the Advanced Medical Technology Association

The Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) is pleased to
provide this testimony on behalf of our member companies and the
patients and health care systems we serve around the world. AdvaMed is
the largest medical technology trade association in the world,
representing more than 1,100 medical device, diagnostic products, and
health information systems manufacturers of all sizes. AdvaMed member
firms provide nearly 90 percent of the $75 billion of health care
technology products purchased annually in the U.S. and nearly 70
percent of the $170 billion worldwide market in medical technologies.

Summary
America is on the cusp of an unprecedented revolution in medical
technology driven by major public and private investments in pure
research and computer technology, as well as a multi-billion dollar
commitment from Congress to double medical research at NIH and unravel
the human genome. At the same time, the growing number and complexity
of new medical devices throughout the last decade, coupled with a drop
in the absolute number of reviewers at FDA's Center for Devices and
Radiological Health (CDRH) has resulted in severe budget strain and
increasing delays in approval of new medical technologies at CDRH.
Late last year, Congress unanimously passed H.R. 5651, The Medical
Device User Fee and Modernization Act (MDUFMA) to give CDRH additional
resources and expertise to help provide timely patient access to new
medical technologies. Over the next 5 years, MDUFMA requires the device
industry to contribute $150 million in user fees to expand resources
and expertise at FDA.
Continuation of the user fee program is contingent upon Congress
providing an increase of $15 million over the CDRH base budget
($205,720,000 adjusted for inflation) in each of the first 3 years of
this agreement. This provision ensures user-fee funds do not displace
congressional appropriations, and allows CDRH to upgrade information
technology and other infrastructure necessary to carry-out a user-fee
program and to meet the modest performance goals.
Congress provided only $4 million of the $15 million appropriations
target in fiscal year 2003. If MDUFMA's cumulative funding requirement
is not reached, the program will sunset at the end of fiscal year 2005
and an important source of new resources for the agency could be lost.
Accordingly, we request that you include $27.3 million in additional
appropriations to help meet the cumulative funding goal of the user fee
legislation. The total CDRH funding for fiscal year 2004 that we
request (including industry-paid user fees) is $237,218,720.

Passage of the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act (MDUFMA)
FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health has faced
increasing challenges as a result of dwindling resources and
accelerating innovation. Staff levels have dropped by eight percent
since 1995. The average total review time for premarket approval
applications has risen to 411 days, more than twice the statutory
review time. A science panel warned in a recent report that
increasingly rapid advances in technology ``threaten to overwhelm''
CDRH's limited resources.
H.R. 5651 addresses these challenges by establishing user fees for
premarket submissions and mandating regulatory reforms to improve the
timeliness of FDA reviews. The bill also includes provisions to
strengthen FDA regulation of reprocessed disposable devices.
The user fee provisions of the bill would establish fees for
premarket approval applications, supplements and 510(k) submissions.
These fees, combined with funds from increased appropriations, will
provide FDA's device program with approximately $225 million in
additional resources over the next 5 years. A letter agreement
accompanying the bill sets strong performance goals for the agency.
Key regulatory reforms in the bill will:
--Eliminate bureaucratic delays in review of combination products by
establishing a new office to oversee these technologies;
--Authorize FDA to accredit third-party inspectors to audit medical
technology companies with a good track record of compliance;
--Encourage timely, thorough premarket reviews by codifying the PMA
``modular review'' program and extending the third-party review
program for 510(k)s;
--Permit electronic device labeling and electronic facility
registration.
From bioengineered organs and implantable artificial hearts to
gene-based diagnostic tests and molecular imaging systems, America's
medical technology companies are developing thousands of promising new
tests and treatments. AdvaMed believes full implementation of MDUFMA
will help ensure these advances reach the millions of patients who need
them.

New FDA Statistics Highlight Pressing Need for MDUFMA Implementation
The fiscal year 2002 premarket review statistics released by FDA's
Office of Device Evaluation (ODE) illustrate the ongoing challenges
facing FDA's device program and the need for rapid implementation of
MDUFMA.
Staffers in FDA's device program deserve much credit for working to
keep pace with rapidly advancing medical technology. In 2002, they
acted on many life-saving and life-improving advances, including an
improved smallpox vaccine delivery system, cardiac resynchronization
therapy for heart failure, stents to improve the treatment of neck
aneurysms and intracranial stroke, and implantable defibrillators for a
new indication that can save the lives of thousands more patients.
Statistics in the ODE annual report, however, show that FDA still
is taking far too long to act on many of these important innovations.
For example, the average total FDA review time at the 90th percentile
of premarket approval applications (which typically are required for
more advanced medical technologies) was 405 days in 1999 (the most
recent year with complete data). Under the user fee provisions of H.R.
5651, FDA will have to approve 90 percent of PMAs within 320 days by
2007.
Review times for 510(k)s also are on the rise, according to the
report. Total FDA review time for the 90th percentile of 510(k)s rose
to 164 days in 2001. The statutory review time for 510(k)s is 90 days.
AdvaMed also is concerned that, as in 2001, ODE saw a net loss in
scientific and medical personnel last year, losing three scientific
reviewers and six medical officers. As FDA implements H.R. 5651, it
will be important for it to make the greatest use possible of external
sources of scientific expertise in the review process. AdvaMed is
working closely with FDA and Congress to ensure that MDUFMA is
implemented as quickly and effectively as possible. This will enable
FDA to report substantially improved premarket review times in the
coming years.

Conclusion
AdvaMed urges this Subcommittee to work with the FDA to fully
implement MDUFMA as soon as possible to ready FDA for the coming era of
biomedical innovation and ensure that patients enjoy timely access to
the coming dramatic breakthroughs in medicine. AdvaMed thanks the
committee for this opportunity to present our views and we look forward
to working with you to help prepare FDA for the coming revolution in
medical technology. AdvaMed and the industry stand ready to meet its
part of this bargain. The industry has agreed to provide $150 million
in industry funds to upgrade FDA's ability to quickly evaluate new
medical products. The agreement reflects the culmination of a 10-year
hard-fought debate within the device industry about whether to proceed
with a user fee approach to improving review times at the FDA. This
program terminates in 2005 if the increased funding for CDRH does not
materialize. Our membership is counting on the Federal government to
meet its part of the bargain by providing the additional funding called
for in the user fee agreement. If we fail here, we will have lost for
the foreseeable future the many benefits that AdvaMed believes can come
from a user fee program.
______

Prepared Statement of the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners

Thank you for allowing the Alachua County Board of County
Commissioners to submit this written testimony to your Subcommittee
regarding a comprehensive, multi-year project to provide critical
utility services to underserved communities located in Alachua County,
Florida. For fiscal year 2004, the County is seeking $5 million in
Federal funds from the Rural Development Administration to aid with a
county-wide partnership that includes the enhancement, expansion and
refurbishment of potable water and central wastewater systems in and
adjacent to seven small municipalities within Alachua County.
Without a safe and reliable source of public utilities, the
residents who live in the rural incorporated communities of Alachua
County must rely upon the use of inadequate water systems and septic
tanks for their utility services. In addition to the health and safety
concerns, this lack of a public utility infrastructure serves as a
deterrent to these areas' economic revitalization. Historically, there
are numerous health risks associated with malfunctioning septic tanks,
including the possible contamination of ground water that could lead to
the development of diseases within the area.
Alachua County, Florida is located in the north-central portion of
the State with a population of approximately 225,000. There are nine
separate municipal governments within Alachua County. According to a
recent Census Bureau estimate, almost 20 percent of all residents in
the county are living below the Federal poverty level. Gainesville, the
county seat, is the largest city with approximately half of the
county's population and is also home of the prestigious University of
Florida, the largest university in the Southeastern United States. The
remaining eight municipalities are considered rural farm communities
with populations less than 6,000 residents. For seven of these
communities, efforts to provide adequate potable water and wastewater
utility services produce funding dilemmas for the municipal
governments. Because of the significant utility infrastructure facility
costs required, coupled with relatively low densities of potential
customers, total debt financing of the utility systems results in cost-
prohibitive rates for end users. Without the infusion of external grant
dollars, these communities face the potential of health and
environmental risks associated with inadequate potable water delivery
systems and degrading septic systems, as well as stagnated economic
growth.
The communities of Alachua, Archer, High Springs, Hawthorne,
Micanopy, Newberry, and Waldo are all currently struggling with this
issue. In an effort to avoid the problems seen throughout Florida
associated with urban sprawl, Alachua County's growth management goals
seek to direct growth within the existing communities. However, unless
solutions for the utility infrastructure funding predicament can be
found, the small communities will be unable to adequately provide for
growing populations.
In conclusion, Alachua County seeks Federal dollars for this
comprehensive, multi-year partnership designed to assist the small
communities' efforts to enhance, expand and refurbish existing utility
systems. Current aggregated estimates for this countywide, multi-year
initiative equal approximately $25 million. A Federal appropriation of
$5 million in fiscal year 2004 will allow for the most critical
projects to commence, while additional sources of funding are sought at
the State and local level.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank the Subcommittee
for including language in the House fiscal year 2003 Agriculture
Appropriations bill on behalf of this project and want to assure you
that we are submitting a proposal to the Department of Agriculture
pursuant to that language. However, the County is in immediate need of
$5 million in dedicated Federal funding in order to help protect the
health and welfare of these low-income communities and to spur their
respective economic growth.
Thank you for your consideration.
______

Prepared Statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation

The American Farm Bureau Federation supports full funding for the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA). We oppose any
reduction or redirection of funds from any farm bill title or program.
Unfavorable weather conditions, uncertainties involved with
international trade, the value of the dollar and record high input
costs have converged to produce a turbulent and difficult time for
agriculture. The industry has suffered through several consecutive
years of historic low market prices and weather disasters. The new farm
law helps address problems faced by American farmers and ranchers and
it provides unprecedented funds for our nation's conservation needs.
Changes in farm bill programs would be devastating not only to farmers
and ranchers but the rural economy as well. Consequently, Farm Bureau
strongly encourages you to fully fund FSRIA in the fiscal year 2004
appropriations process.
Full funding of farm bill commodity programs is essential. It is
imperative that counter-cyclical payment rates, loan rates and direct
payments be preserved as adopted in FSRIA. We are adamantly opposed to
any changes in the current payment limitations of $40,000 for direct
payments, $65,000 for counter-cyclical payments and $75,000 for loan
deficiency payments (LDP) and marketing loan gains (MLG), including a
separate payment limitation for the peanut program. Current rules on
spouses, three-entities, generic certificates and actively engaged
requirements should be retained.
Farm bill conservation programs should be fully funded. Full
implementation of the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP)
and Conservation Security Program (CSP) is key to assisting
agricultural producers in complying with environmental regulations and
addressing important conservation issues nationwide. Program funding
for technical assistance is essential if conservation programs are to
be successful.

FARM BUREAU FISCAL YEAR 2004 APPROPRIATIONS ISSUES

In addition to full farm bill funding, Farm Bureau has identified
four USDA program areas for which priority fiscal year 2004 funding is
essential. They are:
--programs to expand foreign markets for U.S. agriculture;
--programs to ensure the development and use of biotechnology
products;
--programs to promote the use of alternative energy; and
--programs key to the proper implementation of the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA).

PROGRAMS TO EXPAND FOREIGN MARKETS FOR U.S. AGRICULTURE

Creating new overseas markets and expanding those we have is
essential for a healthy agricultural economy. Continued funding of
export development programs is fundamental to improving farm income in
the short and long term. Farm Bureau recommends maximum funding of all
export development programs consistent with our commitments under World
Trade Organization rules.
Expanding international trade is also straining the capacity of
U.S. agencies to monitor and enforce compliance with the terms of trade
agreements including, but not limited to, imported product inspection
and verification; imported and domestic pest detection, control and
eradication; and negotiation, implementation and enforcement of
sanitary and phytosanitary measures. The failure to detect, control and
eradicate invasive pests from foreign sources is costing U.S. farmers,
ranchers and local governments hundreds of millions of dollars for
control and eradication programs, and in lost sales opportunities,
annually. Greater effort must be dedicated to the technical capacity of
the U.S. to trade.
Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)--Trade Issues
Resolution and Management.--Farm Bureau supports $5 million above the
current budget level. As negotiators from other Federal agencies and
industry try to open up foreign markets to U.S. exports, they
consistently find that other countries are raising pest and disease
concerns, real or contrived, to resist allowing American products to
enter. Also, officials from other countries often attempt to refuse
entry to perfectly healthy American products under the guise of a
technicality or flimsy suspicion. Only APHIS can deal with these
issues. This requires placing more APHIS officers overseas where they
can monitor pest and disease situations, negotiate protocols with other
countries, and intervene when foreign officials wrongfully prevent the
entry of American exports. It is expensive to station U.S. employees
overseas because of the high cost of living in some cities and the high
cost of providing security and other services though the State
Department. It can cost several hundred thousand dollars to move an
employee to a foreign location, and a similar amount to keep them
there. A $5 million increase would allow APHIS to place 20 employees in
key locations throughout the world, especially in burgeoning Asia
markets.
Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)--Pest Detection.--
Farm Bureau supports $15 million above the current level for pest
detection at APHIS. The fiscal year 2003 appropriations made a good
start on improving APHIS' woefully under funded plant pest and diseases
detection program, increasing it from $7 million to about $22 million.
However, this pales in comparison to the $93 million appropriated for
animal health monitoring and surveillance. While we all hope that the
move to the Department of Homeland Security will not reduce the
emphasis on agriculture inspection at the borders, an enhanced domestic
pest detection program would offer a degree of insurance. Even with a
solid border inspection program, we believe that we are vulnerable to
the fast spread of plant pests.
Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS).--Farm Bureau supports an
overall increase in funding for the Foreign Agricultural Service's
international programs and activities.
GSM Credits.--Farm Bureau supports the full funding of the GSM
credit guarantee programs. These important export credit guarantee
programs can help make commercial financing available for imports of
U.S. food and agricultural products via a deferred payment plan.
Public Law 480.--Farm Bureau supports increased funding for Public
Law 480 programs, the primary means by which the United States provides
foreign food assistance. The Public Law 480 programs provide
humanitarian and public relations benefits, positively impacts market
prices and helps develop long-term commercial export markets. Farm
Bureau believes that the USDA is best positioned to administer all
programs of the Public Law 480.
Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development Program
(FMD).--Congress should fully fund the MAP and FMD programs as
authorized. These programs need the expertise of a fully supported
Foreign Agricultural Service that is expanded to cover all existing and
potential market posts.
Export Enhancement Program (EEP).--The Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 authorizes direct export subsidies of U.S.
agricultural products through the EEP program through fiscal year 2007
to counter the unfair trading practices of foreign countries. Farm
Bureau supports the full funding and use of this program in all
countries, and for all commodities, where the U.S. faces unfair
competition.
Dairy Export Incentive Programs (DEIP).--Farm Bureau supports full
funding and use of the Dairy Export Incentive Program to allow U.S.
dairy producers to compete with foreign nations that subsidize their
commodity exports.
International Food for Education Program (IFEP).--Farm Bureau
supports funding IFEP at $50 million. The program's demonstration
effort, the Global Food for Education program, has yielded substantial
information to help the IFEP be an effective platform for delivering
both food aid and educational assistance.

PROGRAMS TO ENSURE THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS

Biotechnology is an extremely promising development in agriculture
and all reasonable efforts must be undertaken to allow the promise to
be realized. Environmental activists and foreign governments are
attempting to scare consumers, both here and abroad, into questioning
the use new technology. The integrity of the technology is clearly
being challenged and the platform of safety upon which the technology
is built must be absolutely uncompromised.
USDA must take the lead in biotechnology coordination efforts. It
is essential that the Department act in a timely manner to evaluate and
move approved products and technologies to the marketplace. USDA should
develop a positive national strategy for biotechnology research,
development and consumer education.
Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).--APHIS plays an
important role in overseeing the permit process for products of
biotechnology. Funding and personnel are essential for ensuring public
confidence in biotechnology. Farm Bureau recommends adding $6 million
of funding to expand APHIS staff in order to implement the current
regulatory system and helps ensure the trust of consumers and trading
partners. Continuing the current $2 million appropriation simply will
not allow any progress and the industry may suffer irreversible losses.
Codex Alimentanus Commission.--Farm Bureau supports adequate
funding for the U.S. CODEX office so that it can adequately represent
American interests in this important body, which develops the
international food safety standards used as guidance by the World Trade
Organization. Increasingly, biotechnology is the focus of CODEX
discussions where an ongoing international effort is being led by the
European Union to place limits on our ability to export products of
biotechnology by incorporating the precautionary principle into the
CODEX general principles or biotechnology labeling discussions.
Agriculture Research Service (ARS).--Farm Bureau supports
sufficient funding for plant-breeding research programs because they
are important for maintaining a broad-based research.

PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

The development of alternative energy sources is not only
significant to the advancement of American agriculture but also vital
to enhancing our nation's energy security. The United States currently
imports over 56 percent of its energy needs from foreign sources. This
lack of energy independence has led to price instabilities in the most
basic of energy sources and will lead to production agriculture
spending between $1-2 billion more to plant this year's crop than last
year. Renewable energy sources such as ethanol, biodiesel, wind
generation and biomass can reduce the current overreliance on foreign
energy sources.
The 2002 farm bill contained an energy title that includes
provisions for Federal procurement of bio-based products, bio-refinery
development grants, a biodiesel fuel education program, renewable
energy development program, renewable energy systems, a bioenergy
program and biomass research and development. These programs will
assist rural economic development as well as increase our nation's
energy independence. These important programs to promote alternative
energy sources should be fully funded at authorized levels to further
advance these important programs and to achieve the goals of the energy
title.
We support USDA research on the increased production of all forms
of renewable fuels from agricultural resources for energy use including
research and demonstration programs that use ethanol as a fuel for fuel
cell engine development.

PROGRAMS KEY TO THE PROPER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOOD QUALITY
PROTECTION ACT

USDA plays a crucial role in achieving proper implementation of the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). USDA must continue to work with
EPA, agricultural producers, food processors and registrants to ensure
that farm data and agricultural interests are properly considered and
fully represented in the tolerance reassessment and pesticide re-
registration process.
By the time we reach the 2006 FQPA deadline for reassessment,
nearly 6,000 separate food and feed tolerances will have been
reassessed for nearly 400 different active ingredients. That process
affects nearly 600 specialty crops, all major row crops and animal
production. In order to participate fully and effectively in the
tolerance reassessment process, USDA must have all the resources
necessary to provide economic benefit and use information to EPA.
Funding should be increased to the following offices and programs
that are vital to proper implementation of FQPA:
Office of Pest Management Policy (OPMP).--OPMP has the primary
responsibility for coordination of USDA's FQPA obligations and
interaction with EPA. Major funding increases are necessary to review
the tolerance reassessments, particularly dietary and worker exposure
information; to identify critical use, benefit and alternatives
information; and to work with grower organizations to develop strategic
pest management plans. We recommend that funding for OPMP be doubled
from 2003 budget levels. Further, additional funding to OPMP should be
designated under the Secretary of Agriculture's office, rather than an
add-on to the ARS budget.
Agriculture Research Service (ARS).--Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) research, minor use tolerance research (IR-4) and research on
alternatives to methyl bromide must continue to receive adequate
funding to fully address the unique concerns of these programs.
Research is also needed to identify new biological pest control
measures and to control pesticide migration.
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
(CSREES).--Full funding should be provided for IPM research grants, IPM
application work, pest management alternatives program, expert IPM
decision support system, minor crop pest management project (IR-4),
crops at risk from FQPA implementation, FQPA risk avoidance and
mitigation program for major food crop systems, methyl bromide
transition program, regional crop information and policy centers,
Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (PIAP) and the pesticide applicator
training program.
Economic Research Service (ERS).--ERS programs provide USDA and EPA
with unique data information and they should be properly funded
including IPM research, pesticide use analysis program and the National
Agriculture Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP).
FQPA Implementation.--Additional funding for proper implementation
of FQPA is needed in the following programs: National Agriculture
Statistics Service (NASS) pesticide use surveys; Food Safety Inspection
Service (FSIS) increased residue sampling and analysis; Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS); and, the Pesticide Data Program (PDP).
Administration.--Funding must not be diverted away from USDA
programs that do not benefit U.S. agriculture. Neither fund should be
diverted to foreign or international groups whose goal it is to
exclusively help production competitors in other nations.
______

Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) and the 31 Tribal
Colleges and Universities that comprise the list of 1994 Land Grant
Institutions, thank you for this opportunity to share our funding
requests for fiscal year 2004.
This statement is presented in three parts: (a) a summary of our
fiscal year 2004 funding requests, (b) a brief background on Tribal
Colleges and Universities, and (c) an outline of the 1994 Tribal
College Land Grant Institutions' plan using our land grant programs to
fulfill the agricultural potential of American Indian communities, and
to ensure that American Indians have the skills needed to maximize the
economic development potential of our resources.

SUMMARY OF REQUESTS

We respectfully request the following funding levels for fiscal
year 2004 for our established land grant programs within the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)
and Rural Development. In CSREES, we specifically request: $12 million
payment into the Native American endowment fund--an increase of $4.9
million over fiscal year 2003; $3.1 million for the higher education
equity grants--an increase of $1,411,050; $5 million for the 1994
institutions' competitive extension grants program--an increase of
$1,635,015; $3 million for the 1994 Institutions' competitive research
grants program--an increase of $1,907,150; and in Rural Development's
RCAP program, that $5 million for each of the next five fiscal years be
targeted for tribal college community facilities grants in Rural
Development's Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP), to help
address the critical facilities and infrastructure needs at the 1994
Institutions that impede our ability to participate fully as land grant
partners. This competitive tribal college program has been allocated $4
million in each fiscal year beginning in fiscal year 2001.

BACKGROUND ON TRIBAL COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

The first Morrill Act was enacted in 1862 specifically to bring
education to the people and to serve their fundamental needs. Today,
over 140 years after enactment of the first land grant legislation the
1994 Land Grant Institutions, more than any other higher education
institutions, truly exemplify the original intent of the land grant
legislation, as they are truly community-based institutions.
The Tribal College Movement was launched in 1968 with the
establishment of Navajo Community College, now Dine College, serving
the Navajo Nation. A succession of tribal colleges soon followed,
primarily in the Northern Plains region. In 1972, the first six
tribally controlled colleges established the American Indian Higher
Education Consortium to provide a support network for member
institutions. Today, AIHEC represents 34 Tribal Colleges and
Universities--31 of which comprise the list of 1994 Land Grant
Institutions--located in 12 states begun specifically to serve the
higher education needs of American Indian students. Collectively, they
serve 30,000 full- and part-time students from over 250 Federally
recognized tribes.
The vast majority of the 1994 Institutions is accredited by
independent, regional accreditation agencies and like all institutions,
must undergo stringent performance reviews on a periodic basis. White
Earth Tribal & Community College, the newest 1994 Institution, is in
the pre-candidacy stage. Tribal colleges serve as community centers,
providing libraries, tribal archives, career centers, economic
development and business centers, public meeting places, and child care
centers. Despite our many obligations, functions, and notable
achievements, tribal colleges remain the most poorly funded
institutions of higher education in this country. Most of the 1994 Land
Grant Institutions are located on Federal trust territory. Therefore,
states have no obligation and in most cases, provide no funding to
tribal colleges. In fact, most states do not even fund our institutions
for the non-Indian state residents attending our colleges, leaving the
tribal colleges to absorb the per student operations costs for the
approximately 20 percent non-Indian students enrolled in our
institutions. Unlike our state land grant partners, our institutions do
not benefit from the economy of size--where the cost per student to
operate an institution is diminished by the sheer size of the student
body.
As a result of 200 years of Federal Indian policy--including
policies of termination, assimilation and relocation--many reservation
residents live in abject poverty comparable to that found in Third
World nations. Through the efforts of tribal colleges, American Indian
communities are receiving services they need to reestablish themselves
as responsible, productive, and self-reliant. It would be regrettable
not to expand the very modest investment in, and capitalize on, the
human resources that will help open new avenues to economic
development, specifically through enhancing the 1994 Institutions' Land
Grant programs, and securing adequate access to information technology.

1994 LAND GRANT PROGRAMS--AMBITIOUS EFFORTS TO REACH ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

Sadly, due to lack of expertise and training, millions of acres on
our reservations lie fallow, under-used, or have been developed through
methods that render the resources non-renewable. The Equity in
Educational Land Grant Status Act of 1994 is our hope for rectifying
this situation. Our current land grant programs are small, yet very
important to us. It is essential that American Indians learn more about
new and evolving technologies for managing our lands. We are committed
to being productive contributors to the agricultural base of the nation
and the world.
Extension Programs.--The 1994 Institutions' extension program
strengthens communities through outreach programs designed to bolster
economic development; community resources; family and youth
development; natural resources development; agriculture; as well as
health and nutrition awareness.
In fiscal year 2003, $3,387,000 was appropriated for the 1994
Institutions' competitive extension grants. Additional funding is
needed to support these vital programs, designed to address the
inadequate extension services provided on Indian reservations by the
states. It is important to note that the 1994 extension program is
specifically designed to complement and build upon the Indian
Reservation Extension Agent program, and is not duplicative of other
extension activities. For the reasons outlined above, we request the
Subcommittee further support this program by appropriating $5 million
to sustain the growth and further success of these essential community
based programs.
Native American Endowment Fund.--Endowment installments paid into
the 1994 Institutions' account remain with the U.S. Treasury--only the
interest is distributed annually to our colleges. The latest annual
interest yield (fiscal year 2002) distributed among the 30 eligible
1994 Land Grant Institutions totaled $1,427,750.
Just as other land grant institutions historically received large
grants of land or endowments in lieu of land, this money assists 1994
Land Grant Institutions in establishing and strengthening our academic
programs in such areas as curricula development, faculty preparation,
instruction delivery, and as of fiscal year 2001 to help address our
critical facilities and infrastructure issues. Many of the colleges
have used the endowment funds in conjunction with the Education Equity
Grant funds to develop and implement their programs. As earlier stated,
tribal colleges often serve as primary community centers and although
conditions at some have improved substantially, many of the colleges
still operate under deplorable conditions. Most of the tribal colleges
cite improved facilities as one of their top priorities. For example
Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Community College in Hayward, Wisconsin has
reported an immediate need for substantial renovations to replace
construction materials that have exceeded their effective life span,
and to upgrade existing buildings due to accessibility and safety
concerns.
An increase in the endowment payments would increase the size of
the corpus and thereby increase the annual interest yield available to
the 1994 Land Grant Institutions. This additional funding would be very
helpful in our efforts to continue to support faculty and staff
positions and program needs within Agriculture and Natural Resources
Departments, as well as to help address the critical and very expensive
facilities needs at our institutions. Currently the amount that each
college receives from this endowment is very limited. It is not close
to adequate to address the curricula development and instruction
delivery issues and also make even a dent in the necessary facilities
projects at the colleges. In order for the 1994 Institutions to become
full partners in this nation's great land grant system, we need and
deserve the facilities and infrastructure necessary to engage in
education and research programs vital to the future health and well
being of our reservation communities. We respectfully request the
subcommittee build upon this much needed base fund by increasing the
fiscal year 2004 endowment fund payment to $12 million.
1994 Institutions' Educational Equity Grant Program.--Closely
linked with the endowment fund, this program currently provides just
under $50,000 per 1994 Institution to assist in academic programs.
Through the modest appropriations made available since fiscal year
1996, the tribal colleges have been able to begin to support courses
and planning activities specifically targeted to meet the unique needs
of our respective communities.
The 1994 Institutions have developed and implemented courses and
programs in natural resource management; environmental sciences;
horticulture; forestry; buffalo production and management; and food
science and nutrition--to address epidemic rates of diabetes and
cardiovascular disease on reservations. Haskell Indian Nations
University in Lawrence, KS has used these funds to upgrade and equip a
plant science laboratory to enhance the academic quality of teaching
and to achieve more effective use of facilities for the Environmental
Science Program. The plant science laboratory will directly serve
Botany and Ethnobiology courses, which are offered in Haskell's
Environmental Science baccalaureate degree program. If more funds were
available through the Educational Equity Grant Program, tribal colleges
could channel more of their endowment yield to supplement other
facilities funding in order to address critical infrastructure issues.
Authorized at $100,000 per 1994 Institution, this program was
appropriated $1,688,950 in fiscal year 2003. We respectfully request
full funding of $3.1 million to allow the colleges to build upon the
courses and activities that the initial funding launched.
1994 Research Program.--As the 1994 Land Grant Institutions have
begun to enter into partnerships with 1862/1890 Land Grants through
research projects, impressive efforts to address economic development
through land use have come to light. Our research program illustrates
an ideal combination of Federal resources and tribal college-state
institution expertise, with the overall impact being far greater than
the sum of its parts. We recognize the budget constraints that Congress
is working under. However, we believe that $1.1 million, our fiscal
year 2003 appropriated level, is simply not adequate when there are 30
institutions currently eligible to compete for these precious research
dollars. This research program is vital to ensuring that tribal
colleges finally become full partners in the nation's land grant
system. Many of our institutions are currently conducting agriculture-
based applied research, yet finding the resources to conduct this
research to meet their communities' needs is a constant challenge. This
research authority opens the door to new funding opportunities to
maintain and expand the research projects begun at the 1994
Institutions, but only if adequate funds are appropriated. The
following is an example of the initial projects funded under this vital
new program:
Oglala Lakota College on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota
has begun to investigate the impacts of free-range management on range
soil and water, and bison diet quality. The investigation is being
conducted on previously cattle-grazed land. Because bison behavior
varies from that of cattle, soil/water and range plant characteristics
may change over time. As bison grazing continues, initial
characteristics and changes in rangeland environments will be monitored
and documented. Composition and forage quality as well as the soil
quality of three ecosystems in the bison grazed areas will ultimately
be determined. Electronic workshop/class and outreach materials will be
developed from this study by integrating technical and cultural
knowledge about bison. Oglala Lakota College, South Dakota State
University and other tribal colleges will benefit from the resulting
material. Information will be disseminated through lay publications,
field days, and special workshops.
Other projects begun in the initial round of programs funded
include soil and water quality projects, amphibian propagation,
pesticide and wildlife research, range cattle species enhancement, and
native plant preservation for medicinal and economic purposes. We
strongly urge the Subcommittee to fund this program at $3 million to
enable our institutions to develop and strengthen their research
potential.
Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP).--Beginning in fiscal
year 2001, each year $4 million of the RCAP funds appropriated for
loans and grants to benefit Federally recognized Native American Tribes
have been targeted for community facility grants for tribal college
improvements. As stated earlier, the facilities at many of the 1994
Land Grant Institutions are in desperate need of repair and in many
cases replacement. We urge the Subcommittee to designate $5 million of
the Native American RCAP funds to address the critical need for
improving the facilities at the 31 Tribal College Land Grant
Institutions. Additionally, we respectfully request report language
directing the Department of Agriculture to target a minimum of $5
million for each of the next five fiscal years to allow our
institutions the means to solidly address our critical facilities
needs.

CONCLUSION

The 1994 Land Grant Institutions have proven to be efficient and
effective tools for bringing education opportunities to American
Indians and hope for self-sufficiency to some of this nation's poorest
regions. The modest Federal investment in the 1994 Land Grant
Institutions has already paid great dividends in terms of increased
employment, education, and economic development. Continuation of this
investment makes sound moral and fiscal sense. American Indian
reservation communities are second to none in their need for effective
land grant programs and as earlier stated no institutions better
exemplify the original intent of the land grant concept than the 1994
Land Grant Institutions.
We appreciate your long-standing support of the Tribal Colleges and
Universities and are also grateful for your commitment to making our
communities self-sufficient. We look forward to continuing our
partnership with you, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the other
members of the nation's land grant system--a partnership that will
bring equal educational, agricultural, and economic opportunities to
Indian Country.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our funding proposals to
this Subcommittee. We respectfully request your continued support and
full consideration of our fiscal year 2004 appropriations requests.
______

Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology

The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the largest single
life science organization in the world, comprised of more than 42,000
members, appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony on
the fiscal year 2004 budget for the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) research and education programs.
The ASM represents scientists who work in academic, medical,
governmental and industrial institutions worldwide and are involved in
research to improve human health, the environment, and agriculture.
Microbiological research related to agriculture is important to
understanding foodborne diseases, new and emerging plant and animal
diseases, soil erosion and soil biology, agricultural biotechnology,
and the development of new agricultural products and processes. The ASM
is a member of the Coalition on Funding Agricultural Research Missions
(CoFARM), which represents scientific societies and organizations
involved in formulating research directions and needs for agricultural
research and supports the recommendation to increase the USDA's entire
research portfolio.
Advances in agricultural research continue to allow the United
States to produce agricultural goods that are unrivaled in the world
today. However, U.S. agriculture faces new challenges, including the
threats of new and reemerging diseases, climate change, public concern
about food security and its impact on the environment and fears about
agroterrorism. Unfortunately, public investment in agricultural
research has been stagnant for several years, impeding scientific
advancement and progress, despite the recognized importance of the
agricultural sector to the economy. According to the National Science
Foundation's (NSF) Division of Science Resources Studies, agricultural
research made up only 4 percent of all public funds devoted to basic
research and only 2 percent of total R&D expenditures in fiscal year
2000. Furthermore, indirect costs associated with research are not at
prevailing negotiated rates and are adversely affecting the direction
of research. This is and will lead to unintended consequences in
research priority setting in recipient institutions.
Agricultural research has led to many advances, including
biotechnology, which contributes to a more abundant and nutritious food
supply and a more environmentally friendly food production process,
while reducing agriculture's reliance on chemical fertilizers,
pesticides, and fungicides. With the advent of genomics, a critical
research need in agriculture, we have entered a new era of scientific
discovery in the agricultural field.
It is critical to increase the visibility and investment in
research to respond to these challenges. The ASM encourages the
Subcommittee to build upon the renewed focus on agricultural research
supported in the Administration's fiscal year 2004 USDA budget. This
will not only benefit U.S. agriculture but also the health and well-
being of every American. Many health related conditions are due to poor
nutrition and lack of understanding the old adage--you are what you
eat. Major health care costs could be reduced if the American public
were educated more in food nutrition and health.

Infectious Diseases in Plants and Animals
It is important to recognize a growing threat to the U.S.
agricultural system that requires immediate attention--the threat of
new and emerging infectious diseases. Like the human population, U.S.
agriculture is also experiencing severe problems caused by new and
emerging infectious diseases in plants and animals. Changes in
agricultural practices, population growth, climate, microbial
evolution, animal migration, and international trade and travel are all
factors in introducing new plant and animal diseases into the U.S.
agriculture system and natural resources, such as oak trees in
California and predicted soybean rust. The lack of knowledge to manage
effectively and control new and reemerging infectious diseases often
leads to very serious consequences from lost productivity from
quarantines to embargoes, and the destruction of plants and animals to
control the spread of diseases. For example, citrus canker has cost
millions in tree destruction in Florida. Research, monitoring,
surveillance, and new sources of resistant genetic material, including
the use of biotechnology, may enable continued growth of citrus trees
commercially and by homeowners. New technologies, e.g. the polymerase
chain reaction, now enables us to detect minute quantities of
etiological agents, including those previously ascribed to
physiological problems in plants, such as the class of viruses known as
luteoviruses.

Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
The ASM strongly supports competitive research and believes that
the federal government should provide more opportunities for scientists
to compete for federal research dollars across all agencies and
scientific fields. In 1989, the Board on Agriculture of the National
Research Council (NRC) recommended that public investment through
competitive research grants in agriculture, food, and the environment
be made a national priority. The NRC recommendation became the National
Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRI), which supports
fundamental research on key agricultural problems including food
safety, plant and animal genetics, and water quality (National Research
Initiative: a Vital Competitive Grants Program in Food, Fiber, and
Natural-Resources Research, NRC, 2000). The NRI enables USDA to develop
new partnerships with other Federal agencies (e.g., the National
Science Foundation: The Microbe Project) that advance the agricultural
science enterprise.
The ASM commends the Administration and Congress for recognizing
the funding gap in competitive, peer-reviewed research in its fiscal
year 2003 appropriations for the NRI ($167 million). The ASM supports
additional funding for the NRI that will encourage agricultural science
to tackle the many research needs in today's agriculture, such as,
expanded research in microbial genomics, allergens in food,
pharmaceutical and industrial products arising from biotechnology, and
the possibility of agroterrorism as we face the threat of biological
weapons.
The ASM urges the Subcommittee to fund the NRI at the President's
requested $200 million budget for fiscal year 2004. This level of
funding ensures the commitment of the USDA to the competitive merit
review process, provides funds for fundamental research with long-term
potential for new discoveries, and improves human resource
opportunities in agricultural research. The NRI has yielded extensive
scientific advancements that are comparable to some of those made at
other agencies that fund peer-reviewed research. For instance:
--One of the most challenging bacterial diseases in cattle causes a
wasting, chronic diarrhea. The genome of Mycobacterium
paratuberculosis was recently sequenced, years ahead of
predicted schedule. Specific regions contributing to disease
were identified and are now being tested in diagnostic tests.
These genes and their products may also be the missing links
for an effective vaccine.
--Food safety is a continuing challenge. Millions of foodborne
illnesses occur yearly, including cases associated with the
consumption of raw fruits and vegetables. These notoriously
difficult to treat products are being evaluated by mild heat
treatments to determine efficacy in producing safer and longer-
lasting fresh products.

Agricultural Research Service
The ASM recommends that the Subcommittee build upon the
Administration's proposed $1 billion budget for fiscal year 2004, which
is an $18 million decrease from fiscal year 2003. The Agricultural
Research Service (ARS) is the principal in-house research agency in the
area of natural and biological sciences for the USDA.
United States agriculture is experiencing severe problems because
of new and reemerging infectious diseases in plants and animals, a
threat, which requires immediate attention. The imminent threats of
foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in animals and plum pox in plants are
examples requiring new and extensive research. Agroterrorism could also
present a serious threat to the agricultural system and requires a
renewed focus on animal and plant pathogens. Therefore, the ASM
recommends that increased funding in this area be distributed equally
between plant (emerging and exotic diseases of plants ($3.4 million
fiscal year 2004 increase)) and animal research (emerging, reemerging,
and exotic diseases of animals ($8.3 million fiscal year 2004
increase)) at $10 million each for fiscal year 2004. This increase will
allow ARS to focus on improving pest and disease management with
biologically based technologies, genetics and genome mapping, and food
safety. Furthermore, the ARS needs to focus additional resources in the
area of rapid and accurate detection systems for animal and plant
diseases and pathogens and effective treatment protocols. These tools
remain a key component in the nation's efforts to safeguard the food
supply from natural and manmade events. The ASM encourages Congress to
increase funding in this high-payoff applied research.
The ASM also believes continued support of agricultural genomic
research is a critical component of our nation's research enterprise.
Increasingly, environmental factors are requiring new and novel
solutions to plant production, protection (pest), nutritional content
and food safety that are being addressed through genomic research. For
example, ARS research recently (2003) found genetic markers near the
first two of the four genes that may determine soybean resistance to
cyst nematodes. These microscopic roundworms rob farmers of around 220
million bushels a year. This type of high-payoff research not only
improves agricultural product health and cost, but also makes U.S.
products more competitive and environmentally benign. The ASM is
pleased to see the Administration recognizes the promise of genomic
research through the allocation of an additional $3.5 million for
animal genomics. Research will also focus on developing diagnostic and
vaccine technologies that will ultimately improve the nation's ability
to control disease outbreaks, and mitigate the threats to the nation's
animal, plant, and grain products.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has the
critical role of policing the U.S. infrastructure that is in place to
prevent, diagnose and respond to infectious diseases and pests. With
the U.S. food system becoming increasingly susceptible to foreign
diseases and pest through trade, the United States must upgrade its
biosafety systems to address these threats. APHIS requires new,
accurate and cost effective diagnostic tools and updated information
technology. APHIS's long-term efforts have kept FMD and BSE out of the
United States to date; however, APHIS needs new resources to increase
the availability of vaccines and support efforts that could combat the
potential release of these agents.
The ASM does not believe the Administration's budget reflects
APHIS's daunting task of combating animal and plant diseases and pests.
The ASM recommends that Congress increase funding for APHIS to $1
billion, which is level with fiscal year 2003. This level of funding
would reflect APHIS's role in addressing animal and plant health
monitoring and outbreak management.

Food Safety
Foodborne illness continues to pose a major public health problem
in the United States. The ASM urges Congress to match or exceed the
President's $675 million for the Food Safety and Inspection Service.
The U.S. food system must confront microorganisms that continue to
adapt to their changing environments and begin to ``out smart'' current
techniques to control their presence. Many foodborne microbes have
developed resistance to conventional food preservation and disinfection
techniques and continue to proliferate. It is also important to note
that the diversity of microorganisms affecting food safety changes with
time, processing techniques, location and other factors. Continued and
sustained research is vital if the nation's food supply is to meet the
expectations of the American consumer and trading partners.

Microbial Genomics
Microbes are involved in all aspects of agriculture, from
beneficial uses of microbes in food (e.g., yogurt), to pest controls,
to the spread of disease in plants and animals, and the contamination
of the food supply. Studying the genomes of agricultural microbes is
expected to enable development of new technologies to provide improved
foods and better pathogen control to protect the nation's crops, to
reduce the incidence of plant and animal disease, and to ensure a safer
food supply. Thus, ASM is supportive of microbial genomics through ARS
and the NRI program. Microbial sequencing is also expected to lead to
speedier and more accurate identification of microbes, identify targets
for intervention, as well as potential new antimicrobial agents.
Coordination and cooperation with the National Science Foundation and
the Department of Energy in this area is particularly promising; as is
the interagency working group on microbes that focuses on sequencing
and bioinformatics (i.e., The Microbe Project).

Biobased Products
The ASM continues to support the promising research to accelerate
the conversion of agricultural materials and byproducts into biofuels,
such as soybean oil conversion into (bio)diesel fuel. Such scientific
advancements in biobased product research have the added benefit of
enhancing farm income, strengthening U.S. energy security, rural
revitalization, and environmental stewardship. ASM believes agriculture
can play a positive role in achieving U.S. energy security and
encourages the Subcommittee to consider the benefit biofuels represent
to the entire agricultural and consumer community.
The ASM encourages Congress give high priority to agricultural
research for fiscal year 2004. Many of today's scientific achievements
leading to the development of biotechnology, genetically modified
foods, improved crops and plant-based products and an improved
environment have their roots in the basic research conducted by the
USDA. The future holds many challenges from the monitoring of the
ecological impact of transgenic plants to research in plant and animal
diseases that is requisite to combating agricultural bioterrorism. We
urge the Administration and Congress to assist the USDA to address
these issues.
The ASM appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony
and would be pleased to assist the Subcommittee as the Department of
Agriculture bill is considered throughout the congressional process.
______

Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology

The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the largest single
life sciences society representing over 40,000 scientists, recommends
that Congress increase the Administration's proposed Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) budget of $1.7 billion for fiscal year 2004, which
represents an increase of $59 million over fiscal year 2003, or only 3
percent. Sufficient financial resources must be allocated to the FDA in
order for this crucial agency to continue its science-based oversight
of public health and safety. The FDA's current priorities reflect its
diverse roles in protecting and improving the well-being of individual
Americans, ensuring homeland security against potential terrorist
attacks, reducing the numbers of adverse health events associated with
the food supply and health care products, distributing accurate
information about FDA regulated products, and basing its decisions on
solid science.
The agency has been and will be responsible for much of the
nation's countermeasures against potential biological and chemical
terrorist attack. But the FDA's long-standing responsibilities also
influence the day-to-day, ordinary aspects of American life. In 2002
alone, the FDA evaluated and approved for marketing nearly 5,000 new
drugs, biologics, medical devices and animal drugs. At the same time,
its personnel monitored about eight million import shipments. Consumers
spend 25 cents of every consumer dollar--nearly $1.5 trillion--on
products regulated by the agency, including therapeutic drugs, medical
devices, and most of the nation's food supply. Public trust in the FDA
reflects how well the agency fulfills these broad-based and complex
responsibilities.
The ASM urges Congress to fully support the FDA's role as protector
of public health. Adequate funding will ensure that the agency can
still perform counter-terrorism, consumer product safety, and food
safety within the context of scientific research, complete and accurate
information, and productive collaborations with stakeholders.

Science-Based Security and Safety
The protective mission of the FDA is a complicated mixture of law
and science--as the numbers of new products, food imports, and
potential health threats increase, so do the added regulations,
invested stakeholders, and revised responsibilities. The ASM recognizes
that the FDA's principal strength is the up-to-date information from
which the agency determines its new-product evaluations and its
regulation enforcement. Only strong funding will assure that this
science-based decision-making continues at all of the FDA's research
centers. Research by agency personnel, combined with data gathered from
outside research groups, ensure that safe and effective products reach
the market and that these products remain safe after market approval.
In the approval of new vaccines or the inspection of shellfish, FDA
personnel rely on the latest in scientific evidence and technology.
New technologies like nucleic acid amplification testing (NAT) have
significant potential in protecting the nation's health and thus must
be included among the FDA's diverse research capabilities. The agency's
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), which is
responsible for the safety of the nation's blood supply, has in recent
years approved NAT-based blood testing procedures. These tests
currently screen all donated blood in the United States for HIV and
hepatitis C infection, and the FDA is studying their potential to
screen for West Nile virus (WNV). Concerned with any new and emerging
health threat, CBER scientists also are conducting studies and
gathering extramural evidence on innovative WNV vaccines and
treatments. This characteristic scientific readiness against new
threats like WNV infection and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or
``mad cow disease'') should be supported with adequate funding.

Counter-Terrorism and Project Bioshield
Unfortunately the threats to public health have expanded
dramatically to include both real and potential acts of terrorism and
bioterrorism. The political environment overseas further intensifies
the dire possibilities for biological and chemical terrorism against
American citizens, and thus intensifies the crucial protective role of
the FDA. Part of the Administration's proposed fiscal year 2004 budget
for the FDA falls under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Act of 2002--a reflection of the FDA's
deserved reputation for assessing and managing such threats. In his
recent State of the Union address, President Bush announced Project
BioShield, a science-based program that further enlarges the FDA's
counter-terrorism activities and increases pressure on the agency's
funding resources.
Under Project BioShield, research and public health agencies--in
particular the FDA and the National Institutes of Health--will
collaborate with the new Department of Homeland Security to develop and
make available more modern, up-to-date diagnostic tests, drugs, and
vaccines against intentional attack with biological and chemical
weapons. The program authorizes further stockpiles of the latest
vaccines or drugs against such bioweapons as the infectious agents of
smallpox, anthrax, and plague, as well as botulinum toxin and Ebola
virus. The FDA also will be responsible for limited emergency-use
authorization of promising medical countermeasures that have not
completed standard review protocols. To do so, agency scientists must
be fully informed on all scientific advances in medicine. Medical
innovations such as recombinant DNA technology and molecular
engineering, which are being studied in a number of other diseases,
have potential against bioterrorism agents as well.
The Bioterrorism Act of 2002 mandated a comprehensive plan to
protect against the intentional contamination of food and water
supplies and of medical therapeutics and devices. As the food
regulatory arm of the Federal Government, the FDA is responsible for
developing the appropriate food safety measures. The agency also
assures the adequate and safe supply of drugs and devices important to
the nation's health, and thus has multiple roles within the war on
terrorism.
The FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) has
already completed a number of activities aimed at enhancing the
security of the national food supply. During fiscal year 2002, more
than 600 new food inspectors and laboratory personnel were hired and
more than 34,000 food import examinations conducted. The CFSAN's
intramural research program shifted more resources to developing rapid
test methods for microorganisms and chemical agents considered serious
bioterrorism agents. The Center also initiated a nationwide Laboratory
Response Network to identify local laboratory capabilities related to
intentional contamination. Classified threat assessments done by CFSAN
personnel have delineated the relative risks of contamination among
different categories of food. New regulations currently under review
include registration with the FDA of all domestic and foreign food-
related facilities with U.S. markets, and tighter regulations covering
imported foods and food-origin record keeping.
Under the 2002 legislation, the FDA likewise works with other
Federal agencies to assure adequate supplies of therapies and vaccines
that might be needed against bioterrorist attacks. Within the past
year, the agency's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)
released evaluations of drugs for inhalation anthrax and called for
scientific studies on new treatments for human plague. It also approved
use of a drug to counter nerve gas poisoning among U.S. military
personnel in combat and announced effective use of treatment for human
contamination with radioactive substances.
The FDA mission against terrorism depends on the ability to mount a
rapid and effective response against a range of possible weapons and
avenues of attack. Along with the requisite scientific efforts made
throughout the agency, effective countermeasures also depend upon well-
coordinated cooperation with agencies at all Federal, State, and local
levels, as well as advanced information-sharing systems. Concerned by
the potential for bioterrorism, the ASM urges the Congress to place a
high priority on significant funding for all branches of the FDA.

Consumer Product Safety
To safeguard public health, the FDA has the primary responsibility
for ensuring that safe and effective products reach the marketplace and
that those products remain safe and effective. This includes synthetic
drugs, biologics, blood for transfusion, vaccines, medical devices such
as cardiac implants and hearing aids, cosmetics and more. Not only is
the FDA responsible for approving the sale and/or use of these products
in a timely manner, it must track unfortunate outcomes such as medical
errors involving FDA-approved products and the development of
antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms. All these efforts require the
FDA to have expertise in knowledge management, information gathering
systems, quantitative risk assessment and computer modeling, plus the
capability to rapidly disseminate information to the public and the
private sectors. Within this complex regulatory environment, the FDA is
trying to streamline procedures while encouraging research on a broader
range of specific diseases.
Last year the FDA's approval of nearly 5,000 new drugs, biologics,
medical devices and animal drugs represented an increase of almost 400
new products over 2001. They included a new diphtheria-pertussis-
tetanus vaccine for children and a new drug to treat non-Hodgkins
lymphoma. But there were few advances against certain serious diseases
such as diabetes and obesity. In response to unmet needs, in January
the FDA announced an initiative to improve the development and
availability of innovative medical products, involving all of the
agency's medical product review centers--i.e., biologics, drugs,
devices, and veterinary medicine. It will shorten the amount of time
for FDA review without diminishing standards, and facilitate new
product development through better industry guidelines on specific
diseases and technologies. The initiative also identified three key
areas of emerging technology that will receive more FDA resources:
pharmacogenomics/pharmacogenetics, cell and gene therapy, and novel
drug delivery systems. As elsewhere in the FDA, academic, industry, and
patient groups will be solicited as partners in the discovery process.

Medical Errors
Despite evaluation and regulation of products, adverse events do
occur. Medical errors related to drugs are estimated to cause from
40,000 to 100,000 in-hospital deaths each year. An Institute of
Medicine report estimates that these adverse events increase the
nation's hospitalization bill by up to $17 billion annually, and that
drug-related problems outside the hospital may add another $76-plus
billion to the nation's health care costs. Each year the FDA's MedWatch
program and CDER's adverse event report system receive more than
250,000 reports associated with FDA-regulated drugs. CBER and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention jointly manage the Vaccine
Adverse Event Reporting System, another post-market surveillance
system. The FDA and its centers are working nationally and
internationally to reduce the incidence of these errors, through
education of patients and health care professionals and in some cases
withdrawal of the product from the marketplace.

Antibiotic Resistance
The misuse of antimicrobial drugs has had other serious side-
effects of particular concern to the ASM membership--the emergence of
disease-causing microorganisms resistant to the drugs traditionally
used to treat infectious diseases. The CDC estimates that half of the
100 million prescriptions written by U.S. physicians each year are
unnecessary, a practice that inevitably increases the numbers of
resistant bacteria. About 70 percent of bacteria that cause infections
in hospitals are now resistant to at least one of the drugs most
commonly used to treat those infections. A Harvard study just published
concludes that there likely will be a sharp rise in the strains of
Streptococcus pneumoniae resistant to both penicillin and erythromycin.
The FDA, concerned about the waning usefulness of traditional drugs,
announced this February new drug labeling directed at physicians and
designed to reduce antimicrobial prescriptions.

Food Safety
Although foodborne illness still accounts for about 76 million
illnesses in this country, the U.S. food supply is among the safest in
the world. The FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
(CFSAN) is responsible for safeguarding 80 percent of all food consumed
(the Department of Agriculture regulates meat, poultry, and some egg
products). The Center and the FDA field inspectors are responsible for
$240 billion worth of domestic food, $15 billion worth of imported
foods, and $15 billion worth of cosmetics. Products are inspected for
microbial and chemical contamination and for false labeling, while
increasingly more production facilities are examined for FDA-developed
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point protocols. The FDA's
stewardship of food safety has emerged as a major component of the war
against terrorism.
Like all other groups within the FDA, the CFSAN has a tremendous
responsibility of impressive scope, yet it strives to make science-
based decisions and policies and to disseminate accurate and timely
information. Not only does the FDA succeed admirably in its efforts to
protect the American public, but, it is respected internationally for
its global influence. The ASM urges the Congress to appropriate an
aggressive FDA budget and thus continue the robust and highly diverse
ways in which the FDA preserves public health and national security.
______

Prepared Statement of the American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB)

The American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB), representing
nearly 6,000 plant scientists, appreciates this opportunity to submit
comments to the Subcommittee for its consideration of fiscal year 2004
appropriations for research sponsored by the Department of Agriculture.
Support by the Subcommittee for the National Research Initiative
Competitive Grants Program (NRI) and the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) contributes to important advances in fundamental and applied
research in agriculture.
ASPB greatly appreciates the tremendous successful effort by the
Subcommittee to increase support for the NRI by some 38 percent to $166
million for fiscal year 2003! We urge the Subcommittee to continue to
place an emphasis on core areas of plant research sponsored by the NRI,
including plant biochemistry, genetic mechanisms, growth and
development, plant response to the environment, genomic research and
invasive plants. Advances in these areas of research will make a major
contribution to increased crop production by America's farmers.
The National Research Council Board on Agriculture and Natural
Resources Committee report on the NRI in 2000 strongly endorsed support
for this competitive grants program. The NRC committee ``found the NRI
to have financed high-quality scientific work within congressional
guidelines. . . . The committee reiterates the extraordinary importance
of public merit-based peer-reviewed research in food, fiber and natural
resources. In the committee's opinion, past public research and current
private activities cannot meet the needs that are being created by
population growth, climate change and natural resource deterioration or
the challenges related to food safety and nutrition and to the growing
convergence of foods and medical research.''
The NRC committee recommended that a major emphasis of the NRI
continue to be the support of high-risk research with potential long-
term payoffs. Much of this research would be classified as fundamental
in the traditional use of this term.
A major conclusion of the NRC committee was that, ``Without a
dramatically enhanced commitment to merit-based peer-reviewed, food,
fiber and natural resources research, the nation places itself at
risk.'' Continued support for a balanced research portfolio in the
Department including intramural and extramural research is needed to
address the many and sometimes devastating problems farmers face in
growing crops. ARS continues to address very effectively many important
research questions for American agriculture, including many that are
national in scope and best addressed by a Federal agency. American
farmers and consumers are well-served by the large number of successful
research efforts of ARS scientists.
In addition to the direct benefits to farmers and consumers that
result from the leading research discoveries sponsored by the NRI and
ARS, increased support for these programs will help maintain the
strength and vigor of the nation's agricultural research community.
Helping American farmers meet the food production needs of the
nation's 290 million people and millions more overseas places huge
demands on the research community. With more former farmlands sprouting
townhouses, and other non-agricultural development, there are increased
demands on the research community to help boost crop yields per acre.
At the same time, the research community is called upon to find more
environmentally benign approaches to increase yields. We believe that
these goals of producing higher crop yields on the same or less acreage
in a manner that is friendlier to the environment could be met with
increased emphasis on support for ARS-and NRI-sponsored plant research.
For example, research sponsored by the NRI and ARS is leading to
plants engineered to tolerate higher levels of salinity. This will help
farmers salvage more of their crops in dry seasons. Increased tolerance
of future engineered plants to environmental stresses of cold and
freezing will be a boon to growers. The Federal Government will
experience savings in emergency spending for crop disasters--some
disasters that will be avoided through use of new, enhanced plants.
Much progress has been made in fighting plant diseases with crops
engineered to resist pests. At the same time, the usage of harsh
chemical pesticides has been reduced through the use of genetically
engineered crops. Research sponsored by the NRI and ARS contributed
knowledge leading to the development of these superior crops. Increased
support for the NRI and ARS will lead to more varieties of enhanced
crops resistant to devastating diseases.
We urge the Subcommittee to increase support for the NRI and ARS in
fiscal year 2004. As requested by the President, ASPB urges
appropriating $200 million to the NRI in fiscal year 2004. We urge a
significant increase for ARS over the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to submit comments to the
Subcommittee. We deeply appreciate the Subcommittee's leadership in
support of plant research, which has been essential to producing and
securing the nation's food supply.
______

Prepared Statement of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials

Dear Chairman Bennett and Members of the Subcommittee: The
Association of State Dam Safety Officials is pleased to offer this
testimony on the President's proposed budget for the Department of
Agriculture for fiscal year 2004, specifically in support of the
Watershed Rehabilitation Program.
The Association of State Dam Safety Officials is a national non-
profit organization of more than 2,000 state, federal and local dam
safety professionals and private sector individuals dedicated to
improving dam safety through research, education and communications.
Our goal simply is to save lives, prevent damage to property and to
maintain the benefits of dams by preventing dam failures. Several
dramatic dam failures in the United States called attention to the
catastrophic consequences of failures. The failure of the Federal Teton
Dam in 1976 caused 14 deaths and over $1 billion in damages, and is a
constant reminder of the potential consequences associated with dams
and the obligations to assure that dams are properly constructed,
operated and maintained.
The Administration's proposed budget includes only $10 million in
discretionary appropriations to fund rehabilitation of unsafe and
seriously deficient dams that were originally constructed under USDA
Watershed Programs. The Association of State Dam Safety Officials
respectfully requests that this Subcommittee appropriate the full
amount authorized by the 2002 Farm Bill, which includes $55 million in
discretionary funds and $50 million in Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC) funding.

The Problem
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) under
authorities granted by Congress beginning in the 1940s provided
technical and financial assistance to local sponsors and constructed
small watershed dams. These dams, completed primarily under the
authority of Public Law 534 and Public Law 566 provided important
benefits including flood protection, municipal and rural water
supplies, irrigation, recreation, water quality, sediment removal and
habitat. The USDA, in partnership with these local sponsors constructed
nearly 11,000 small watershed dams across the country in 47 states.
Dams constructed under these USDA programs have provided local
communities with years of critical service. They have provided flood
protection for many homes and businesses, and the local transportation
infrastructure. Many communities rely on watershed dams for drinking
water and many farmers depend on those dams for necessary irrigation
water to grow food and fiber.
However, these dams are aging and many are starting to reach the
end of their design life. Many watershed dams no longer are able to
continue to provide the benefits that the local communities have
counted on for so many years, such as the expected level of flood
protection. Many dams are unable to continue to provide the same
storage volume for drinking water; and many of them are so filed with
sediment that they cannot provide water quality and sediment removal
functions. More alarming is the recognition that as these dams continue
to age and deteriorate they threaten the very same local communities
that have relied on them for protection and for quality of life
improvements. Approximately 450 small watershed dams will reach the end
of their expected design life by 2005; and over 1,800 will reach their
design life expectancy by 2010.
The challenge is enormous, as the local sponsors cannot shoulder
the entire burden alone. Without a fully funded Watershed
Rehabilitation Program, the flood protection provided by these dams
will be diminished, irrigation and drinking storage will be reduced and
water quality will continue to decline. However, the most dramatic
consequences from the aging and deterioration of these dams without
their rehabilitation will undoubtedly be to increase the probability of
a tragic failure. Dam failures cause lives to be lost, downstream
property to be destroyed and damage to critical public infrastructure
(roads, bridges, water treatment facilities). The cost of just one dam
failure, measured in loss of life, property damage and clean up costs,
could easily exceed the entire cost of the Watershed Rehabilitation
authorization.
Often, development, attracted by the benefits provided by the dam,
have significantly altered the upstream watershed and increased runoff
and sediment transport to the dam. In addition, it is very common to
see major downstream development in the area below the dam, within the
dam failure flood zone, which causes dam safety officials great
concern, as the dams no longer meet minimum dam safety requirements.
These development consequences are typically beyond the control of the
local sponsoring organizations, yet they are responsible to compliance
with the state dam safety standards.
Many of the small watershed dams do not have Emergency Action
Plans, essential for saving lives in the event of a dam failure. These
plans provide for surveillance of the dam, notification of emergency
management officials, evacuation plans, and most importantly the
identity of the areas below the dam that would be flooded in the event
of a dam failure. Without these plans, a local downstream community
would have little chance of receiving adequate and timely warning in
order to evacuate their homes and businesses. Critical to this plan is
the completion of dam failure modeling to clearly map the downstream
area flooded form a failure, often called the ``danger reach''.
Rehabilitation funded under this program should include this, as part
of the rehabilitation design and planning package. Considering the
security threat alerts that so often include potential actions against
dams, these plans are even more critical.

Examples
Iowa has been well served by their 1,300 watershed dams, including
500 in the Little Sioux River Basin. Currently, 65 of the watershed
dams have exceeded their design life of 50 years and within five more
years 100 more will exceed their design life. There are 92 project
requests seeking assistance, which total nearly $10 million in
rehabilitation costs. These 92 dams pose a risk to 180 people and $3.3
million in downstream infrastructure.
Local sponsors in Pennsylvania have submitted 22 requests for
watershed rehabilitation projects. The total rehabilitation costs for
these 22 dams is $2.4 million, yet these dams return $10.7 million in
annual benefits; and leave 14,000 people and $414 million of
infrastructure at risk from a failure.
In Texas, there are nearly 2,000 USDA Watershed Dams that provide
important irrigation water, critical flood protection and many other
benefits. 65 watershed dams have already exceeded the 50-year design
life, while another 340 more watershed dams will exceed their design
life in just five years.
There are currently requests from sponsors to rehabilitate 198
watershed dams in Texas. These dams pose a threat to almost 20,000
people living below them; and $87 million of public infrastructure is
also risk. Yet, these 198 dams also provide $13 million in benefits
each year to Texan constituents who continue to rely on them. The
estimated costs to rehabilitate these 198 watershed dams are
approximately $60 million.
Georgia is another state that has benefited from these federal
programs as there are 357 small watershed dams, with 128 current
requests from local sponsors for assistance from USDA to conduct
rehabilitation including extending the service life of the dams. There
are nearly 6,000 people and over $1.5 billion of infrastructure at risk
downstream from these dams. The annual benefits from these watershed
dams are $17 million. The estimated rehabilitation costs for these 128
dams is $86 million, which represents the largest identified need of
any state in the country.
Gwinett County, Georgia offers a dramatic example of changes in the
watershed due to development beyond the control of the local sponsors.
In the 1960's the population of Gwinett County was approximately 70,000
and the dams were primarily constructed to provide protection for
agricultural areas. Today, there are 650,000 residents in Gwinett
County with several hundred living below these dams that no longer meet
dam safety standards.
In Missouri, there are 770 watershed dams with 189 requests for
rehabilitation assistance to date. The estimate to rehabilitate these
dams is just over $15 million. These dams provide $1.3 million in
annual benefits and pose a risk to nearly $3 million of downstream
infrastructure.
Table 1 attached to this testimony lists, by state, the total
number of USDA watershed dams currently identified as needing
rehabilitation, the range of range of years the dams were constructed,
the population and infrastructure at risk, the annual benefits derived
from the dams and the estimated costs for rehabilitation.

Request
Mr. Chairman and Members of this subcommittee, the Association of
State Dam Safety Officials see this full funding of this program as
critical to the safety of the nation's dams as well as the lives and
property downstream. Identifying a funding source for rehabilitating
and securing our country's dams is a major challenge. For the 11,000
small watershed dams created through a highly successful program
administered by the Federal government, Congress and the Administration
should reconfirm their commitment to the structures and the American
people who depend on the continuing benefits provided by these dams.
These same people need to be secure that the dams the United States
help them build will not fail or diminish their function.
ASDSO asks that the Subcommittee view funding the Rehabilitation of
Watershed Dams as a significant re-investment in the benefits of the
program and an investment in the safety of these dams. Therefore, this
association respectfully requests that this Subcommittee provide
additional appropriations beyond the Administration's request to fully
fund this critical program at the $105 million authorized level.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee for this
opportunity to submit this testimony. We look forward to working with
the Subcommittee and staff in any way to advance the safety of dams in
the United States.

TABLE 1.--SUMMARY OF PROJECT SPONSOR REQUESTS--REHABILITATION OF AGING DAMS--NATIONAL SUMMARY APRIL 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
Total number Number of Dam Pop. at risk Infrastr. at benefits Rehab cost
State of projects rehab requests construction number est. risk dollar provided dollar est
dams range of years est. dollar est.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK...................................... 0 0 to .............. .............. .............. ..............
AL...................................... 105 64 1960 to 1955 3,805 $19,380,000 $5,634,000 $20,217,500
AR...................................... 170 28 1954 to 1986 245 8,655,000 2,131,743 12,983,800
AZ...................................... 25 22 1954 to 1988 75,560 178,330,000 28,440,000 51,000,000
CA...................................... 3 1 1955 to 1955 10,000 25,000,000 3,000,000 500,000
CO...................................... 144 9 1957 to 1982 55,580 70,000,000 3,743,000 11,900,000
CT...................................... 31 2 1961 to 1988 1,000 3,000,000 150,000 200,000
DE...................................... 0 0 to .............. .............. .............. ..............
FL...................................... 10 0 to .............. .............. .............. ..............
GA...................................... 357 128 1953 to 1993 5,931 1,583,258,241 17,465,239 86,287,500
HI...................................... 4 0 to .............. .............. .............. ..............
IA...................................... 1,325 92 1948 to 1984 180 3,311,000 551,000 9,838,000
ID...................................... 3 1 1970 to 1970 5,000 10,000,000 675,000 2,000,000
IL...................................... 64 10 1960 to 1975 840 2,050,000 106,900 1,977,300
IN...................................... 110 14 1961 to 1973 1,101 38,150,000 1,344,460 4,400,000
KS...................................... 809 62 1954 to 1989 39 4,051,700 1,820,100 13,869,700
KY...................................... 200 22 1957 to 1975 12,100 16,700,000 2,902,800 11,700,000
LA...................................... 35 0 to .............. .............. .............. ..............
MA...................................... 29 15 1960 to 1982 61,108 3,300,000 12,175,000 3,300,000
MD...................................... 16 0 to .............. .............. .............. ..............
ME...................................... 16 3 1965 to 1975 0 0 6,000 30,000
MI...................................... 13 0 to .............. .............. ..............
MN...................................... 44 5 1957 to 1963 18 380,000 29,000 430,000
MO...................................... 770 189 1954 to 1982 0 2,829,825 1,299,810 15,170,000
MS...................................... 578 57 1957 to 1995 1,953 18,355,000 3,764,600 11,430,000
MT...................................... 16 7 1962 to 1975 365 21,000,000 2,465,900 1,520,000
NC...................................... 98 54 1954 to 1992 688 1,337,520 717,300 7,748,125
ND...................................... 48 2 1962 to 1979 250 5,500,000 1,200,000 1,350,000
NE...................................... 723 98 1954 to 1997 1,401 15,937,000 10,327,691 11,081,000
NH...................................... 24 0 to .............. .............. .............. ..............
NJ...................................... 20 1 1962 to 1961 25 60,000 21,500 200,000
NM...................................... 78 12 1975 to 1962 2,256 154,900,000 1,333,000 8,400,000
NV...................................... 8 0 to .............. .............. .............. ..............
NY...................................... 55 53 1955 to 1097 78,428 1,747,949 2,240,455 2,265,250
OH...................................... 61 30 1955 to 1976 720 13,250,000 2,355,000 7,550,000
OK...................................... 2,087 83 1949 to 1977 5,245 27,625,000 2,823,706 47,997,000
OR...................................... 5 2 1967 to 1969 125 1,100,000 1,400,000 200,000
PA...................................... 87 22 1960 to 1994 14,640 414,000,000 10,735,000 2,437,000
PR...................................... 2 0 to .............. .............. .............. ..............
RI...................................... 0 0 to .............. .............. .............. ..............
SC...................................... 86 39 1960 to 1985 69,335 62,868,000 1,532,700 1,619,500
SD...................................... 55 6 1960 to 1983 0 140,000 125,000 275,000
TN...................................... 140 0 to .............. .............. .............. ..............
TX...................................... 2,038 198 1948 to 1987 19,677 87,104,000 13,315,700 59,805,000
UT...................................... 25 0 to .............. .............. .............. ..............
VA...................................... 145 12 1956 to 1974 1,183 17,906,216 355,201 10,000,000
VT...................................... 4 4 1968 to 1973 960 25,000,000 292,000 800,000
WA...................................... 3 0 to .............. .............. .............. ..............
WI...................................... 86 8 1956 to 1970 292 1,623,100 444,500 2,430,000
WV...................................... 167 93 1954 to 1992 13,969 76,587,670 7,658,767 99,013,310
WY...................................... 13 0 to .............. .............. .............. ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Totals................... 10,935 1,448 1948 to 1997 444,019 2,914,437,221 144,582,072 521,924,985
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

______

Prepared Statement of the Bear Trust International, Boone and Crockett
Club, Bowhunting Preservation Alliance, Buckmasters American Deer
Foundation, Campfire Club of America, Congressional Sportsmen's
Foundation, Conservation Force, Foundation for North American Wild
Sheep, Houston Safari Club, International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, Izaak Walton League of America, Mule Deer
Foundation, National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports
Foundation, National Trappers Association, Pope and Young Club, Quality
Deer Management Association, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ruffed
Grouse Society, Safari Club International, Shikar Safari Club
International, The Wildlife Society, Wildlife Management Institute, and
Whitetails Unlimited, Inc.

Dear Chairman Bennett and Sen. Kohl: We urge you to include
adequate funding in the fiscal year 2004 federal budget to fully
implement the National Plan to Assist States, Federal Agencies and
Tribes in Managing Chronic Wasting Disease in Captive and Free Ranging
Cervids. We specifically ask your subcommittee to appropriate $7.75
million for agency programs within Department of the Interior and,
further, $20.46 million for non-matching state and tribal grants to be
administered either through USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is always fatal for deer and elk. It
has been found in either captive or free-ranging wildlife in 12 states
and 2 Canadian provinces. Left unmanaged, this disease has the
potential to devastate local deer and elk populations. Moreover,
improper management of CWD will stimulate a major economic loss for
state agencies and private businesses that rely on hunting and wildlife
associated tourism for their livelihood. According to the USFWS's 2001
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation, 10.9 million sportsmen and women spent 153 million days
hunting big game in 2001. Collectively, they spent $10.1 billion to
purchase necessary equipment and to cover trip-related costs. And
within Colorado, the Division of Wildlife estimated that deer and elk
hunters generated $599 million for the state's economy in 2001.
Furthermore, the Division collected $44 million through deer and elk
license sales, which represented 54 percent of the agency's $81.9
million budget for 2001.
In May 2002, the House Resources Subcommittees on Forests and
Forest Health and Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans held a
joint oversight hearing on the CWD crisis. Invited witnesses were asked
to provide suggestions as to how Congress and the federal government
could most effectively assist states in the fight against CWD.
Resultantly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI) were directed to prepare a national
plan to address CWD.
A national CWD task force was quickly formed to ensure that federal
and state agencies cooperated in the development and implementation of
an effective national CWD strategy and program. Membership for the task
force, and its associated working groups, totaled 75 professionals who
were knowledgeable in wildlife health, wildlife management, wildlife
biology and livestock health and represented a myriad of state and
federal wildlife management and animal health agencies, as well as
universities.
On June 26, 2002 the task force released the National Plan to
Assist States, Federal Agencies and Tribes in Managing Chronic Wasting
Disease in Captive and Free Ranging Cervids, also known as the National
CWD Plan. This plan represents the most current scientific knowledge on
CWD, and delineates a strategy to identify the extent of the disease
and management actions necessary to limit its spread. An Implementation
Document was then developed to identify who will be responsible for
individual projects, how these projects will help control CWD, how much
money is necessary to implement the projects, and when each project
should be completed. The Implementation Document, dated October 16,
2002, was provided to Bobby Acord, Director of APHIS, and Steve
Williams, Director of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is our
understanding that the document has since been provided to the Office
of Management and Budget for review and analysis. Both documents are
available at http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fuseaction/
policy.policy.
According to the National CWD Plan, the primary federal role will
be to provide coordination and assistance with research, surveillance,
disease management, diagnostic testing, technology, communications,
information dissemination, education and funding for state CWD
programs. Federal agencies will provide tools and financial assistance
to states and help develop consensus-based approaches to CWD control.
The federal funding requirements identified in the Implementation
Document total $108 million over a three year period. It is important
to recognize that not all CWD funding has been or will be federal
dollars. For example, it is estimated that the states of Colorado,
Nebraska, and Wisconsin expended $3.6 million to combat CWD during
2002. In Colorado, a portion of that money was used to cull
approximately 450 mule deer and 200 elk, further evidence of the
mounting need to protect the viability of wild and captive cervid
populations.
We are concerned that the collaborative science-based
recommendations in the National CWD Plan and its associated
Implementation Document have not been given due consideration during
the development of the fiscal year 2004 budget. The Implementation
Document recommends $13.6 million for USDA, $7.75 million for DOI and
$20.46 million for state and tribal grants during the first year.
However, the Administration only requested $14 million for USDA, of
which only $7 million is for Plan activities. Moreover, DOI would
receive $2.4 million under the Administration's request, less than half
of what the Implementation Document's authors recommended, and the
states would receive nothing. We believe this spending request is
woefully inadequate to effectively implement the National CWD Plan.
In summary, we urge you to include in the fiscal year 2004 federal
budget the funding necessary to fully implement year one of the
National CWD Plan. Both the DOI and the USDA Agriculture have been
assisting states and tribes to the extent that their budgets permit;
however, significant additional funding is needed to implement the
actions and programs outlined in the National CWD Plan and its
associated Implementation Document. Since the management of resident
wildlife is the responsibility of the appropriate state wildlife
agency, in addition to funding the CWD activities of both the DOI and
USDA, the federal budget appropriation must provide funding that will
be passed on to the states through a grant program that requires no
match. The states have already spent millions of dollars on this issue
and need federal funding assistance to continue the battle.
Thank you for reviewing our comments, and we look forward to
working with you on this important issue throughout the appropriations
process.
______

Prepared Statement of Bob Lawrence & Associates Inc.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Bob
Lawrence, and I am President of Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc., a
consulting firm located in Alexandria, Virginia. With me today is Jim
Goldwater, a Vice President with my firm. We are here today to request
full funding of the Department of Agriculture's conservation programs,
as authorized in last year's Farm Bill. These programs provide valuable
assistance to farmers and ranchers striving to preserve and enhance
both water quality and water quantity. Specifically, for the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), we support the
Department's request of $850 M. For the Ground & Surface Water
Conservation Program, we request the Authorized level of $60 M, as
opposed to the Budget Request of $51 M, and for the Conservation
Security Program, we request the maximum allowed under the formula
created in the new Farm Bill.
Mr. Chairman, for the past 16 years, it has been the pleasure of
our firm to provide consulting services to the modern, mechanized
irrigation industry, and during those years, we have developed a deep
admiration for the dedicated, ethical approach of this industry and the
dramatic improvements that the industry has made to efficient water
use, prevention of non-point source pollution through reductions in the
application of chemicals, pesticides, and fertilizers, and significant
increases in quality crop production. Similar improvements have
occurred in the turf and landscape portions of the irrigation industry,
resulting in the quality use of reclaimed water, increases in water use
efficiency, such as irrigation scheduling, and efficient application
resulting in chemical reductions. The reductions in water use as well
as water waste offer the additional benefit of helping to minimize
future droughts. For these reasons, we commend the United States
Congress for its vision and leadership by including important
irrigation provisions in the landmark Conservation title in last year's
Farm Bill, and for ensuring that improvements in the use of
agricultural irrigation are eligible for assistance under these
Conservation programs. A brief description of each program follows:
EQIP.--The Environmental Quality Incentives Program provides
incentive assistance to ranchers and farmers to install, maintain, or
upgrade conservation measures (including water quality enhancement,
erosion control, and enhanced irrigation management) on more than 17
million acres of agricultural land. Funds are split between livestock
(60 percent) and crop producers (40 percent).
The Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program, which falls
under the EQIP umbrella, provides cost-shared, low-interest loans, and
incentive payments to encourage ground and surface water conservation.
Under the Farm Bill conference agreement, water conservation activities
that are eligible for incentive payments and cost-share include ``low-
energy precision irrigation systems, low-flow irrigation systems . . .
and conversion from gravity or flood irrigation to higher efficiency
systems.'' The agreement also authorizes assistance ``to improve
irrigation systems and to enhance irrigation efficiencies,'' language
which we proposed. Assistance is also authorized to ``mitigate the
effects of drought.'' Clearly, this program is timely and addresses the
heart of present, national, farm problems.
The Conservation Security Program.--This new program was created to
assist agricultural producers to maintain or adopt conservation
practices on private agricultural land. It is intended to help the
producers implement programs to address resource problems, including
soil, air, water, plant and animal, and energy conservation.
Specifically defined practices include ``water conservation (including
through irrigation) and water quality management.''
During consideration of the Farm Bill in the last Congress, the
domestic irrigation industry which we represented justified greater
national acceptance of and commitment to efficient irrigation
technology in a number of ways. These included the following:
--In the United States, streams, lakes, and aquifers hold 75 percent
of our fresh water. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, of
the remaining 25 percent, agriculture uses about 80 percent.
--Since agriculture accounts for most of the country's daily water
consumption, solutions for both water quality and quantity
problems are likely to involve agriculture.
--Conservation and improved efficiency offer the greatest
opportunities for helping to address water resource protection.
--According to the Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey, pressurized
irrigation is substantially more efficient than gravity (flood)
systems. For example, on virtually the same amount of
agricultural land, pressurized irrigation used just 37 percent
of the water used for agricultural purposes, while flood
accounted for 63 percent.
--Irrigated acres account for only 15 percent of U.S. farmland but
produce 38 percent of farm revenue, according to the National
Research Council.
--Sound water management practices, including the deployment of
modern irrigation technology, can help preserve limited water
supplies during incidents of drought.
--The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has estimated
that drought causes annual economic losses of $6-8 billion,
more than the losses caused by floods or hurricanes.
--The reduction in the amount of water applied each year by
agriculture adopting more efficient technology practices equals
the water needed for the annual personal use of every man,
woman, and child in the nation's 29 largest cities.
--Control of nonpoint source pollution, particularly that caused by
agricultural activities including animal waste production, is a
preeminent water quality concern, since runoff from farming and
urban areas causes over 50 percent of the nation's nonpoint
source pollution.
--The development and deployment of more efficient irrigation
technologies can substantially enhance water quality by
preventing erosion of top soil and reducing nonpoint source
pollution through such means as limiting the amounts of
pesticides, chemicals, and fertilizers applied. Greater
utilization of efficient irrigation will also contribute
significantly to the protection of watersheds, aquifers, and
other water sources.
--Modern irrigation technology can also reduce the amount of water
lost through inefficient or outdated systems. It allows the
agriculture, turf and landscape, and golf course industries to
apply water more efficiently, taking into consideration time of
day, local topography and soil conditions, the size and
configuration of the area requiring irrigation, and weather.
Proper irrigation system scheduling minimizes and can even
eliminate wasteful application by considering such factors as
natural rainfall and saturated soils.
--Landscaping can increase residential property values by 7 percent
and add as much as 15 percent to the selling price of a home.
In Conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let us reaffirm that the many benefits
offered by modern irrigation technology can help us address a variety
of problems faced by the agricultural community--indeed, the entire
country--today. The Conservation programs listed above, and the
incentives provided by these programs, will enable many, many farmers
and ranchers to implement critical and timely solutions, thereby
strengthening our agricultural community and improving our air and
water environments.
We thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.
______

Prepared Statement of the California Industry and Government Central
California Ozone Study Coalition on behalf of the California Industry
and Government Central California Ozone Study Coalition we are pleased
to submit this statement for the record in support of our fiscal year
2004 funding request of $500,000 for CSREES for the Central California
Ozone Study (CCOS)

Most of central California does not attain Federal health-based
standards for ozone and particulate matter. The San Joaquin Valley is
developing new State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for the Federal ozone
and particulate matter standards in the 2002 to 2004 timeframe. The San
Francisco Bay Area has committed to update their ozone SIP in 2004
based on new technical data, and the Sacramento area also plans to re-
evaluate their ozone SIP in that timeframe. In addition, none of these
areas attain the new Federal 8-hour ozone standard. SIPs for the 8-hour
standard will be due in the 2007 timeframe--and must include an
evaluation of the impact of transported air pollution on downwind areas
such as the Mountain Counties. Photochemical air quality modeling will
be necessary to prepare SIPs that are approvable by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
The Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) is designed to enable
central California to meet Clean Air Act requirements for ozone SIPs as
well as advance fundamental science for use nationwide. The CCOS field
measurement program was conducted during the summer of 2000 in
conjunction with the California Regional PM10/
PM2.5 Air Quality Study (CRPAQS), a major study of the
origin, nature and extent of excessive levels of fine particles in
central California. CCOS includes an ozone field study, a deposition
study, data analysis, evaluations of model performance, and a
retrospective look at previous SIP modeling. The CCOS study area
extends over central and most of northern California. The goal of the
CCOS is to better understand the nature of the ozone problem across the
region, providing a strong scientific foundation for preparing the next
round of State and Federal attainment plans. The study includes six
main components, some of which have been completed:
--Developed the design of the field study.
--Conducted an intensive field monitoring study from June 1 to
September 30, 2000.
--Developing an emission inventory to support modeling.
--Developing and evaluating a photochemical model for the region.
--Designing and conducting a deposition field study.
--Evaluating emission control strategies for the next ozone
attainment plans.
The CCOS is directed by Policy and Technical Committees consisting
of representatives from Federal, State and local governments, as well
as private industry. These committees, which managed the San Joaquin
Valley Ozone Study and currently manage the California Regional
PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study, are landmark
examples of collaborative environmental management. The proven methods
and established teamwork provide a solid foundation for CCOS. The
sponsors of CCOS, representing state, local government and industry,
have contributed approximately $9.1 million for the field study. The
Federal Government contributed $3,730,000 for some data analysis and
modeling. In addition, CCOS sponsors are providing $2 million of in-
kind support. The Policy Committee is seeking Federal co-funding of an
additional $6.25 million to complete the remaining data analysis and
modeling portions of the study and for a future deposition study.
California is an ideal natural laboratory for studies that address
Federal, agriculture-related issues, given the scale and diversity of
the various ground surfaces in the region (crops, woodlands, forests,
urban and suburban areas).
For fiscal year 2004, our Coalition is seeking funding of $500,000
through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). Domestic
agriculture is facing increasing international competition. Costs of
production and processing are becoming increasingly more critical. The
identification of cost-effective options for addressing environmental
options affecting agricultural costs will contribute significantly to
the long-term health and economic stability of local agriculture. A
CSREES grant is needed to address the issue of crop ozone adsorption,
soil NOX emissions, smoke particulate dispersion and
deposition, alternatives to open burning. Particulate dispersion is
managed in order to minimize smoke impacts and avoid violations of
ambient air quality standards. The air quality impacts of particulate
dispersion and alternatives to burning need to be addressed. CCOS will
improve the ability to assess the impacts of smoke particulate
dispersion. A CSREES grant is also needed to better understand the
potential air quality benefits of crop ozone adsorption in the air
quality modeling inventory. Recent studies have shown that crop ozone
adsorption can have significant beneficial impact impacts on ozone
formation.
There is a national need to address data gaps and California should
not bear the entire cost of addressing these gaps. National data gaps
include issues relating to the integration of particulate matter and
ozone control strategies. The CCOS field study took place concurrently
with the California Regional Particulate Matter Air Quality Study--
previously jointly funded through Federal, State, local and private
sector funds. Thus, CCOS was timed to enable leveraging the efforts of
the particulate matter study. Some equipment and personnel served dual
functions to reduce the net cost. From a technical standpoint, carrying
out both studies concurrently was a unique opportunity to address the
integration of particulate matter and ozone control efforts. CCOS was
also cost-effective since it builds on other successful efforts
including the 1990 San Joaquin Valley Ozone Study. Federal assistance
is needed to effectively address these issues and CCOS provides a
mechanism by which California pays half the cost of work that the
Federal Government should pursue.
We appreciate the Subcommittee's consideration of our request.
Thank you very much.
______

Prepared Statement of the Coalition on Funding Agricultural Research
Missions (CoFARM)

The Coalition on Funding Agricultural Research Missions (CoFARM),
representing 130,000 members from scientific and professional
organizations, is united by a commitment to advance and sustain
investment in our nation's fundamental and applied agricultural
research.
We understand that the Agriculture Appropriations bill has many
valuable and necessary components, and we applaud the efforts of the
Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee which resulted in the
National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRI) being
funded at $166 million fiscal year 2003, an increase of nearly 40
percent over fiscal year 2002! Below we have highlighted funding
recommendations for the fiscal year 2004 appropriations cycle.
By priority area our recommendations include:
Recommendation 1.--CoFARM urges you to support the President's
fiscal year 2003 proposal of $240 million for the NRI. A study
conducted by USDA's Economic Research Service highlights the annual
rate of return to publicly fund agricultural research at 35 percent.
Therefore, increased funding of agriculture research would be
beneficial to our U.S. economy. Our research programs should be viewed
as an investment in the future, not an expense. Moreover, funding the
NRI at $240 million would support the finding in the recent National
Academies report, Frontiers in Agricultural Research, that total
competitive grants should be substantially increased to and sustained
at 20-30 percent of the total USDA research portfolio.
Recommendation 2.--CoFARM requests that any new monies appropriated
for the NRI, as in fiscal year 2003, allow the Secretary the discretion
to apply up to 20 percent towards carrying out integrated research,
extension and education competitive grants program under the same
conditions and terms as those provided for in the fiscal year 2003
spending bill. Multidisciplinary research efforts continue to have a
promising future within all research communities, and agriculture does
not differ from this trend.
The NRI is a highly respected competitive grants program that funds
the basic research necessary to improve crop and livestock production,
and the processes that deliver quality food products from farm to table
while protecting and enhancing the nation's environment and natural
resources. Recent security threats facing America require new and
expanded agricultural research to protect our nation's forests, water
supplies, food processing and distribution network, and rural
communities and insure the future security, safety and sustainability
of America's food and fiber system. In order to address these
challenges and maintain our position in an increasingly competitive
world, we must maintain and continue to support research programs such
as the NRI.
Without ongoing research, our nation will be unable to meet the
many current and new challenges facing our food production system from
farm to table. Past investment in the NRI has allowed scientists
engaged in research on agricultural systems to successfully achieve
many breakthroughs which include:
--NRI researchers have improved feeding standards and management
practices for livestock that reduce waste products and improve
nutrient management to protect our soil and water resources.
--The USDA was the lead U.S. agency in the International Rice Genome
Sequencing Project, which led to the published initial
sequences for two varieties of rice (Science 296:32-35 (2002)).
--NRI researchers have observed that pre-pregnant overweight or obese
women were associated with failure to initiate and sustain
lactation. They concluded that a reduction in the prolactin
response to suckling represents one biological mechanism that
could help to explain the early lactation failure observed in
overweight and obese women.
--An NRI-funded studied conducted by agricultural economists at Texas
A&M addressed the influence of nutrition knowledge, food
beliefs, and dietary restraint on food choices.
--The development of national disaster response plans by NRI
researchers working with the Department of Homeland Security.
The future viability of our nation's production systems will depend
on the investment in science we make today. Congress must enhance
funding for competitive agricultural research to assure Americans of a
safe and affordable food supply and to provide for the next generation
of research scientists.
As you lead the Congress in deliberation on funding levels for
agricultural research, we urge you to support the President's proposal
of $240 million for the NRI. Please consider CoFARM as a supportive
resource in efforts to improve agricultural research capacity. We hope
you will call on our membership and scientific expertise.
______

Prepared Statement of the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural
Exports

As members of the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports,
we commend the Chairman and members of the Subcommittee for their
interest and support of U.S. agriculture and express our appreciation
for this opportunity to share our views.
The Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports is an ad hoc
coalition of over 80 organizations, representing farmers and ranchers,
fishermen and forest product producers, cooperatives, small businesses,
regional trade organizations, and the State Departments of Agriculture
(see attached). We believe the U.S. must continue to have in place
policies and programs that help maintain the ability of American
agriculture to compete effectively in a global marketplace still
characterized by subsidized foreign competition.
Farm income and agriculture's economic well-being depend heavily on
exports, which account for one-third or more of domestic production,
provide jobs for millions of Americans, and make a positive
contribution to our nation's overall trade balance. In 2003, U.S.
agriculture exports are projected to reach $57 billion, which is still
below the high of roughly $60 billion that was achieved in 1996. This
lower level of exports is caused by a combination of factors, including
continued subsidized foreign competition and related artificial trade
barriers. U.S. agriculture's trade surplus is also expected to be about
$14 billion, down approximately 50 percent from 1996, with imports
continuing at record levels.
According to recent USDA information, the European Union (EU)
currently spends $2 to $5 billion annually on agricultural export
subsidies compared to less than $100 million by the United States. In
other words, the United States is being outspent by a factor of 20 to 1
or more by the EU alone with regard to the use of export subsidies.
During 1998-99, (the most recent year for which data is available), the
EU, the Cairns group, and other foreign competitors also devoted more
than $1 billion on various activities to promote their exports of
agricultural, forestry, and fishery products.
According to USDA, spending by these competitor countries on market
promotion increased by 50 percent over the 1995-98 time period, while
U.S. spending remained flat. We have no reason to believe that this
trend in spending by our competitors has changed since then.
Furthermore, almost all of this increase has been directed to the high-
value and consumer-ready product trade.
Information compiled by USDA also shows that such countries are
spending over $100 million just to promote sales of their products in
the United States. In other words, they are spending almost as much to
promote their agricultural exports to the United States as the United
States currently spends ($110 million) through the Market Access
Program (MAP) to promote American-grown and produced products
worldwide! In fiscal year 1999, the United States recorded its first
agricultural trade deficit with the EU of $1 billion. In fiscal year
2002, USDA reported that the trade deficit with the EU had grown to
$2.2 billion, the largest agriculture deficit the United States runs
with any market.
Because market promotion is a permitted ``green box'' activity
under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, with no limit on public or
producer funding, it is increasingly seen as a centerpiece of a winning
strategy in the future trade battleground. Many competitor countries
have announced ambitious trade goals and are shaping export programs to
target promising growth markets and bring new companies into the export
arena. European countries are expanding their promotional activities in
Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, and Brazil have also sharply bolstered their export promotion
expenditures in recent years.
As the EU and our other foreign competitors have made clear, they
intend to continue to be aggressive in their export efforts. During
consideration of the 2002 Farm Bill, Congress sought to bolster U.S.
trade expansion efforts by approving an increase in funding for MAP and
the Foreign Market Development (FMD) Cooperator Program, which will
begin to reverse the decline in funding for these export programs that
occurred over the last decade. For fiscal year 2004, the new Farm Bill
authorizes funding for MAP at $125 million, and FMD is authorized at
$34.5 million. The Coalition strongly supports both levels of funding
for these important export programs.
Both MAP and FMD are administered on a cost-share basis with
farmers and other participants required to contribute up to 50 percent
of their own resources. These programs are among the few tools
specifically allowed under the Uruguay Round Agreement to help American
agriculture and American workers remain competitive in a global
marketplace still characterized by subsidized foreign competition. The
over 70 U.S. agricultural groups that share in the costs of the MAP and
FMD programs fully recognize the export benefits of market development
activities. In fact, they have sharply increased their own
contributions to both programs over the past decade while USDA funds
have actually dropped. Since 1992, MAP participants have increased
their contributions from 30 percent (30 cents for every dollar
contributed from USDA) to almost 120 percent ($1.20 in industry funds
for every USDA dollar). For FMD, the contribution rate has risen from
76 percent to the current level of 120 percent. By any measure, such
programs have been tremendously successful and extremely cost-effective
in helping maintain and expand U.S. agricultural exports, protect
American jobs, and strengthen farm income.
For all these reasons, we want to emphasize again the need to help
strengthen the ability of U.S. agriculture to compete effectively in
the global marketplace. American agriculture is among the most
competitive industries in the world, but it cannot and should not be
expected to compete alone against the treasuries of foreign
governments. As a nation, we can work to export our products, or we can
export our jobs. USDA's export programs, such as MAP and FMD, are a key
part of an overall trade strategy that is pro-growth, pro-trade and
pro-job.
Again, as members of the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural
Exports, we appreciate very much this opportunity to share our views
and we ask that this statement be included in the official hearing
record.
Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports (See Attached List)

Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
American Forest and Paper Association
American Hardwood Export Council
American Meat Institute
American Peanut Council
American Quarter Horse Association
American Seed Trade Association
American Sheep Industry Association
American Soybean Association
Blue Diamond Growers
Calcot, Ltd.
California Agricultural Export Council
California Asparagus Commission
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Canning Peach Association
California Cling Peach Board
California Dried Plum Board
California Fig Institute
California Kiwifruit Commission
California Plum Marketing Board
California Strawberry Commission
California Table Grape Commission
California Tomato Commission
California Walnut Commission
Cherry Marketing Institute
Chocolate Manufacturers Association
CoBank
Diamond of California
Florida Citrus Commission
Florida Citrus Mutual
Florida Citrus Packers Association
Florida Citrus Processors Association
Florida Department of Citrus
Food Export USA-Northeast
Georgia Poultry Federation
Ginseng Board of Wisconsin
Gulf Citrus Growers Association
Highlands County Citrus Growers Association, Inc.
Hop Growers of America
Indian River Citrus League
Kentucky Distillers Association
Land O'Lakes, Inc.
Mid-America International Agri-Trade Council
Mohair Council of America
National Association of State Departments ofAgriculture
National Association of Wheat Growers
National Barley Growers Association
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
National Chicken Council
National Confectioners Association
National Corn Growers Association
National Cotton Council
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
National Dry Bean Council
National Grain Sorghum Producers
National Grange
National Grape Cooperative Association, Inc.
National Milk Producers Federation
National Pork Producers Council
National Potato Council
National Renderers Association
National Sunflower Association
National Turkey Federation
North American Millers' Association
Northwest Horticultural Council
Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.
Peace River Valley Citrus Growers Association
Pet Food Institute
Softwood Export Council
Southern Forest Products Association
Southern U.S. Trade Association
Sunkist Growers
Sun Maid Growers of California
Sunsweet Growers, Inc.
The Catfish Institute
The Popcorn Institute
Tree Top, Inc.
United Egg Association
United Egg Producers
United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association
USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council
USA Poultry & Egg Export Council
USA Rice Federation
U.S. Apple Association
U.S. Dairy Export Council
U.S. Hide, Skin & Leather Association
U.S. Livestock Genetics Export, Inc.
U.S. Meat Export Federation
U.S. Rice Producers Association
U.S. Wheat Associates
Valley Fig Growers
Vinifera Wine Growers Association
Washington Apple Commission
Welch's
Western Growers Association
Western Pistachio Association
Western U.S. Agricultural Trade Association
Wheat Export Trade Education Committee
WineAmerica (The National Association of American Wineries)
Winegrape Growers of America
Wine Institute
______

Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum

The Congress concluded that the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program should be implemented in the most cost-effective way,
and realizing that agricultural on-farm strategies were some of the
most cost-effective strategies authorized a program for the Department
of Agriculture within the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act.
With the enactment of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 (FAIRA), the Congress directed that the Salinity Control
Program should be implemented as one of the components of the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Since the enactment of
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (FSRIA) in 2002, there is,
for the first time, an opportunity to adequately fund the Salinity
Control Program within the EQIP.
The Salinity Control Program, as set forth in the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Act, is to benefit Lower Basin water users
hundreds of miles downstream from salt sources in the Upper Basin.
There are very significant economic damages caused by high salt levels
in this water source. Agriculturalists in the Upper Basin where the
salt must be controlled, however, don't first look to downstream water
quality standards but realize local benefits. They submit cost-
effective proposals to the State Conservationists in Utah, Wyoming and
Colorado and offer to cost share. The Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Act provides that the seven Colorado River Basin States will
also cost share in this effort, providing 30 percent of the funding.
This has brought together a remarkable partnership.
After longstanding urgings from the states and directives from the
Congress, the Department has concluded that this program is different
than small watershed enhancement efforts common to the EQIP program. In
this case, the watershed to be considered stretches more than 1,200
miles from the river's headwater in the Rocky Mountains to the river's
terminus in the Gulf of California in Mexico. The Department has now
determined that this effort should receive a special fund designation
and has appointed a coordinator for this multi-state effort.
The NRCS has earmarked funds to be used for the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Program and has designated this an area of
special interest. The Forum appreciates the efforts of the subcommittee
in this regard. In fiscal year 2002, there was earmarked about $10
million. The states added about $4.3 million in up-front cost-sharing
in fiscal year 2002 and local producers cost-share, it is estimated,
about another $4.6 million. The plan for water quality control of the
Colorado River was prepared by the Forum, adopted by the states, and
approved by the EPA. In the water quality plan it is required that the
USDA (federal) portion of the effort be funded at a level of at least
$17.5 million. Hence, in fiscal year 2002 there was a shortfall in the
minimum needed federal designated funds of about $7.5 million. State
and local cost-sharing is triggered by the federal appropriation.
The USDA indicates that more adequate funding in fiscal year 2003
for the EQIP program will result in more funds being allocated for the
salinity control program. Over the past few years, the NRCS has
designated that 2.5 percent of the EQIP funds be allocated to Colorado
River Salinity Control. The Forum believes this is the appropriate
future level of funding as long as it does not drop below $17.5
million. The Basin states have cost sharing dollars available to
participate in on-farm salinity control efforts. The agricultural
producers in the Upper Basin are waiting for their applications to be
considered so that they might also cost share in the program.
The Congress authorized in FSRIA that the EQIP program in fiscal
year 2004 could be at the $1 billion level. The President has requested
$850 million for financial assistance with the $150 million balance
being used to partially fund the Farm Bill Technical Assistance
Account. The Forum urges the Subcommittee to adequately fund the EQIP
program so as to provide that at least 2.5 percent of the cost sharing
and technical assistance funds be designated for the Colorado River
Basin salinity control effort.

OVERVIEW

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program was authorized by
Congress in 1974. The Title I portion of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act responded to commitments that the United States
made, through a Minute of the International Boundary and Water
Commission, to Mexico with respect to the quality of water being
delivered to Mexico below Imperial Dam. Title II of the Act established
a program to respond to salinity control needs of Colorado River water
users in the United States and to comply with the mandates of the then
newly enacted Clean Water Act. This testimony is in support of funding
for the Title II program.
After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the
Basin states concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be
amended. Congress agreed and revised the Act in 1984. That revision,
while keeping the Department of the Interior as lead coordinator for
Colorado River Basin salinity control efforts, also gave new salinity
control responsibilities to the Department of Agriculture. Congress has
charged the Administration with implementing the most cost-effective
program practicable (measured in dollars per ton of salt removed). It
has been determined that the agricultural efforts are some of the most
cost-effective opportunities.
Since Congressional mandates of nearly three decades ago, much has
been learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River system.
The Bureau of Reclamation has conducted studies on the economic impact
of these salts. Reclamation recognizes that the damages to United
States' water users alone are hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed
of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum has become the seven-state
coordinating body for interfacing with Congress to support the
implementation of a program necessary to control the salinity of the
river system. In close cooperation with the federal agencies and under
requirements of the Clean Water Act, every three years the Forum
prepares a formal report analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River,
anticipated future salinity, and the program necessary to keep the
salinities at or below the levels measured in the river system in 1972
so as to control damages to downstream users.
In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system,
the salinity concentrations measured at Imperial, and below Parker, and
Hoover Dams in 1972 have been identified as the numeric criteria. The
plan necessary for controlling salinity has been captioned the ``plan
of implementation.'' The 2002 Review, Water Quality Standards for
Salinity, Colorado River System, includes an updated plan of
implementation. In order to eliminate the shortfall in salinity control
resulting from inadequate federal funding for the last several years
for USDA, the Forum has determined that implementation of the salinity
control program needs to be accelerated. The level of appropriation
requested in this testimony is in keeping with the agreed to plan. If
adequate funds are not appropriated, state and federal agencies
involved are in agreement that damage from the higher salt levels in
the water will be more widespread and very significant in the United
States and Mexico.

STATE COST-SHARING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

The authorized cost sharing by the Basin states, as provided by
FAIRA, was at first difficult to implement as attorneys for USDA
concluded that the Basin states were authorized to cost share in the
effort, but the Congress had not given USDA authority to receive the
Basin states' funds. After almost a year of exploring every possible
solution as to how the cost sharing was to occur, the states, in
agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation, state officials in Utah,
Colorado and Wyoming and with NRCS State Conservationists in Utah,
Colorado and Wyoming, agreed upon a (parallel( salinity control program
wherein the states' cost sharing funds are being contributed and used.
We are now several years into that program and, at this moment in time,
this solution to how cost sharing can be implemented appears to be
satisfactory.
With respect to the states' cost sharing funds, the Basin states
felt that it was most essential that a portion of the program be
associated with technical assistance and education activities in the
field. Without this necessary support, there is no advanced planning,
proposals are not well prepared, assertions in the proposals cannot be
verified, implementation of contracts cannot be observed, and valuable
partnering and education efforts cannot occur. Recognizing these
values, the ``parallel'' state cost sharing program expends 40 percent
of the funds available on these needed support activities. Initially,
it was acknowledged that the federal portion of the salinity control
program funded through EQIP was starved with respect to needed
technical assistance and education support. The Forum is encouraged
with a recent Administration acknowledgment that technical assistance
must be better funded. The Forum urges this Subcommittee to appropriate
$432 million as requested by the President for the Farm Bill Technical
Assistance Account.
______

Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California

Your support and leadership are needed in securing adequate funding
for the U.S. Department of Agriculture with respect to it's on-farm
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program for fiscal year 2004.
This program has been carried out through the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act, since it was enacted by Congress in 1974. With
the enactment of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act
(FAIRA) in 1996, specific funding for salinity control projects in the
Colorado River Basin were eliminated from the federal budget, and
aggregated into the newly created Department of Agriculture
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) as one of its program
components. With that action, Congress concluded that the salinity
control program could be more effectively implemented as one of the
components of the EQIP. Prior to FAIRA, the Department of Agriculture
had specific line item funding for salinity control projects as high as
$14.7 million, but in recent years funding made available through EQIP
has averaged less than $5.5 million per year which is woefully
inadequate to ensure that water quality standards in the Colorado
River, with regard to salinity can be met. California's Colorado River
water users are presently suffering economic damages in the hundreds of
million of dollars per year due to the river's salinity.
The Colorado River Board of California (Colorado River Board) is
the state agency charged with protecting California's interests and
rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado River System.
In this capacity, California along with the other six Colorado River
Basin States through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
(Forum), the interstate organization responsible for coordinating the
Basin States' salinity control efforts, established numeric criteria,
in June 1975, for salinity concentrations in the River. These criteria
were established to lessen the future damages in the Lower Basin States
of Arizona, California, and Nevada, as well as assist the United States
in delivering water of adequate quality to Mexico in accordance with
Minute 242 of the International The Honorable Robert Bennett, Chairman
April 4, 2003 Page 2 Boundary and Water Commission. The goal of the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program is to offset the effects
of water resource development in the Colorado River basin after 1972
rather than to reduce the salinity of the River below levels that were
caused by natural variations in river flows or human activities prior
to 1972. To maintain these levels, the salinity control program must
remove 1,800,000 tons of salt loading from the River by the year 2020.
In the Forum's last report entitled 2002 Review, Water Quality
Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System (2002 Review) released in
October 2002, the Forum found that additional salinity control measures
in the order of 1,000,000 tons were necessary to meet the
implementation plan. The plan for water quality control of the River
has been adopted by the states, and approved by the Environmental
Protection Agency. Since implementation of EQIP, federal allocations by
the Department of Agriculture have not equaled the Forum's identified
funding needs for the Department of Agriculture's portion of the
program and thus its efforts have begun to lag behind. To date, the
USDA has been successful in preventing 318,000 tons of salt from
entering the River system, however, over 370,000 tons of potential salt
reduction have been identified that can be controlled with Department
of Agriculture EQIP funding. The Forum has presented testimony to
Congress in which it has stated that the rate of implementation of the
program beyond that which has been funded in the past is necessary.
This testimony, in support of EQIP funding, has been prepared in
advance of any Presidential or Congressional action on funding for the
Farm Bill. The Colorado River Board is encouraged that with passage of
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, the Commodity
Credit Corporation (CCC) is authorized to borrow up to $1 billion for
EQIP in fiscal year 2004. Of the amount to be appropriated for EQIP,
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, at its meeting in San
Diego, California, in October 2002, recommended a funding level of
$17.5 million for on-farm salinity control in the Colorado River Basin
for fiscal year 2004 to maintain water quality consistent with the
established standards. The Colorado River Board supports the
recommendation of the Forum and urges this subcommittee to support the
funding at the $1 billion level from the CCC in fiscal year 2004 for
EQIP. The Colorado River Board also requests that this subcommittee
advise the Administration that $17.5 million of these funds be
designated for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. These
federal dollars, if earmarked, would be augmented by state cost sharing
of 30 percent with an additional 30 percent provided by the
agricultural producer with whom the Department of Agriculture contracts
for implementation of salinity control measures. The salinity control
program has proven to be a very cost effective approach to help
mitigate the impacts of higher salinity. Continued federal funding of
the program is essential.
In addition, the Colorado River Board recognizes that the federal
government has made significant commitments to the Republic of Mexico
and to the seven Colorado River Basin States with regard to the
delivery of quality water to Mexico. In order for those commitments to
be honored, it is essential that in fiscal year 2004 and in future
fiscal years, the Congress provide funds to the Department of
Agriculture to allow it to continue providing needed technical support
to the producers for addressing salinity control in the Basin. The
Honorable Robert Bennett, Chairman April 4, 2003 Page 3 The Colorado
River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital water resource to
the 17 million residents of southern California as well as throughout
the Lower Colorado River Basin. As stated earlier, preservation of its
quality through an effective salinity control program will avoid the
additional economic damages to users of Colorado River water in
California, Arizona, and Nevada.
The Colorado River Board greatly appreciates your support of the
federal/state Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program and again
asks for your assistance and leadership in securing adequate funding
for this program.
______

Prepared Statement of the Critical Mass Energy and Environmental
Program Public Citizen and the Government Accountability Project

Chairman Bennett, Ranking Member Kohl and Members of the
Subcommittee: On behalf of our two organizations, we welcome this
opportunity to present our views on the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill. Public Citizen is a non-profit consumer
organization founded by Ralph Nader in 1971. Public Citizen represents
150,000 members. The Government Accountability Project's mission is to
protect the public interest by promoting government and corporate
accountability through advancing occupational free speech and ethical
conduct, defending whistleblowers, and empowering citizen activists.
Founded in 1977, GAP is a non-profit, public interest organization and
law firm.

USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
We are adamantly opposed to the Administration's proposal to
collect $122 million in user fees in order to recover the cost of
providing inspection services beyond an approved eight-hour primary
shift. We believe that such a proposal could compromise the
effectiveness of FSIS inspectors. Furthermore, FSIS has already taken
action to de-list foreign establishments that had been previously
approved to export their meat and poultry products to the United States
on the basis that inspection services were paid by the companies
involved instead of by the foreign government. Implementation of the
Administration's proposal would be hypocritical.
Additionally, we are concerned that the current proposal to hire 80
more FSIS inspectors will be inadequate to fill the current vacancies
and to make up for previous years' cuts. We urge the subcommittee to
request from the agency a full listing of all current position
vacancies and the length of time the positions have been vacant. We
recommend that at least 200 new line inspectors be hired this year.
The alarming number and magnitude of the meat and poultry recalls
that have occurred over the past year indicate that there are some
serious problems with the implementation of the Hazard Analysis
Critical Control Points (HAACP) program. We have been arguing for the
past three years that HACCP has turned over too much of the authority
to industry to police itself and has severely undercut the ability of
FSIS inspection personnel to do their jobs. We have heard directly from
inspection personnel who state that they are very confused over their
roles in HAACP because of the conflicting instructions they receive
from top level management within FSIS.
More troubling is the fact that the economic well-being of
companies is placed ahead of the public's welfare by the management of
FSIS. In 2002, we were able to obtain instructions to FSIS inspectors
assigned to a Kansas slaughter plant in which they were admonished that
should they err on the side of public health and stop a slaughter line
they would be held personally liable for their decision.
We are also concerned about the lack of backing which FSIS
inspectors receive from supervisors and USDA management when they
discover food safety hazards in their assignments. In the ConAgra
recall, information has surfaced that USDA knew of potential problems
at the Greeley, Colorado plant as early as February 2002--some three
months before the first recall notice went out. During that month,
testing conducted by FSIS inspection personnel at the Montana Quality
Foods and Processing plant located in Miles City, Montana and
transmitted to the FSIS regional office in Minneapolis confirmed that
the source of contaminated meat ground at Montana Quality Foods and
Processing was the ConAgra plant in Greeley, Colorado. Working with
John Munsell, the President of Montana Quality Foods and Processing,
the inspection personnel tried to get FSIS upper level management to
review food safety practices at the ConAgra plant. They were concerned
that due to the large volume of product from this plant, inadequate
practices could create a significant public health threat. Instead of
applauding Mr. Munsell and the FSIS personnel for their investigative
work, they have been maligned by top FSIS officials and have been told
they had no authority to point the finger at ConAgra.
The same can be said of the Wampler recall. A twenty-year veteran
inspector, Vincent Erthal, had tried to warn his supervisors for
several months of the unsanitary conditions at the Wampler plant
located in Franconia, Pennsylvania. He even requested that FSIS take
enforcement action against Wampler. His concerns went unheeded. This
past fall, the largest recall in FSIS history was issued for possible
Listeria monocytogenes contamination of product coming out of that
plant. After much soul-searching, Mr. Erthal decided to come forward to
reveal how his attempts to warn FSIS supervision of his concerns were
thwarted. Again, instead of backing their own employee, USDA management
has circled the wagons and launched a campaign to discredit Mr. Erthal.
With all of the problems that FSIS has already experienced with
their implementation of HAACP, the proposed fiscal year 2004 budget
contains language that would expand the HACCP-Inspection Models Project
(HIMP) in slaughter facilities. HIMP is still another attempt to weaken
the authority of FSIS inspection personnel and turn that responsibility
over to company personnel. In a December 17, 2001 report, the General
Accounting Office documents glaring methodological deficiencies in the
current pilot project that FSIS has been conducting. There has not been
any evidence to show that those deficiencies have been addressed.
Therefore, we would urge that this pilot project not go forward until
reliable data is furnished upon which a proper evaluation can be made
of the effectiveness of this program.
While we applaud additional funds to support food safety education,
we believe that the money will actually be used to promote irradiation.
In her written remarks to the Subcommittee, Under Secretary for Food
Safety Dr. Elsa Murano stated it was her intent to devote resources to
educate the public about food irradiation. Her remarks also indicate
that she will attempt to blur the definition of pasteurization to
include irradiation in her education campaign.
In focus groups conducted for FSIS in 2002, consumers in St. Louis,
Missouri; Raleigh, North Carolina; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania were
asked whether they considered irradiation to be a form of
pasteurization, and overwhelmingly consumers responded that making such
an assertion would be misleading. Those findings corroborated findings
from focus groups conducted for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
in three different cities during the summer of 2001.
Lastly, we are concerned about the recent revelations that FSIS
still has not addressed problems identified by the USDA Inspector
General regarding the agency's re-inspection program for imported meat
and poultry products. In 2000, the USDA Inspector General in 2000 noted
some 18 deficiencies in the FSIS re-inspection program. In her recent
audit, the USDA Inspector General stated that FSIS had still not
corrected 14 of those deficiencies--even though FSIS had agreed to do
so three years ago. In light of the heightened concerns about the
security of our food supply, this is unconscionable.

USDA--Food and Nutrition Service/Agricultural Marketing Service
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the Farm Bill)
contained a provision (section 4201 (l)) that directed the Secretary of
Agriculture not to prohibit the use of approved food safety
technologies in any commodity purchased by the USDA for various
government-sponsored nutrition programs, including the National School
Lunch and National Breakfast Programs. The USDA has decided to
interpret this language to mean the lifting of the ban currently in
place against the use of irradiation as an intervention for ground beef
products purchased for these programs. And, it seems this is the only
approved food safety technology they are pursuing.
Section 4201 (l) never received any scrutiny by any congressional
committee--in either the House or the Senate. It never received any
floor debate--in either the House or the Senate. It was placed in the
Senate version of the Farm Bill at the last minute as part of a 400-
page manager's amendment. The conferees on the Farm Bill never even
discussed it in open session.
On November 22, 2002, the USDA announced that it would solicit
comments from the public on the implementation of Section 4201 (l) of
the Farm Bill and specifically wanted comments on irradiation. The
comments were collected by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).
The comment period ended on April 11, 2003. Of the comments posted on
the AMS website on this subject by May 28, 2003, by a nearly 11 to 1
margin, citizens have expressed their opposition to lifting the ban on
irradiation--with hundreds of comments still left to be posted.
Comments opposing such action have come from nearly all fifty states,
while those supporting the technology have come primarily from those
who have direct ties to the irradiation industry.
In spite of this overwhelming opposition to permitting irradiation
of food in the child nutrition programs, USDA announced on May 29, 2003
its intent to lift the prohibition on irradiation as an intervention.
In order to promote this technology, the Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS) has funded an irradiation ``education'' program in three
Minnesota school districts. The program is being administered by
proponents of irradiation--with no access provided to opponents of the
technology to present alternative views. In addition, the program is
dominated by one irradiation company and its affiliates. In essence,
FNS has funded a government-sponsored advertising campaign for one
company.
What makes this ``education'' program significant is the fact that
the material used to promote irradiation in Minnesota will be used
across the country in other school districts. We have learned that one
of the Minnesota school districts recently dropped out of the program
because the superintendent came to the conclusion that this issue
properly belonged in the public health arena and should be not be
debated at the school district level. Consequently, it seems that FNS
has wasted $151,000 to fund an ``education'' program with incomplete
results.
We are opposed to irradiation because we are not certain of its
safety. Recent research coming from Europe indicates that some
chemicals formed when certain foods are irradiated may be harmful when
consumed. The new studies call into question the long-held position of
the FDA and the food industry that irradiated foods are generally safe
for human consumption. The studies confirm research published in 1998
and 2001 showing that concentrations of chemicals called 2-
alkylcyclobutanones (or 2-ACBs)--which are found only in irradiated
foods--caused DNA damage in human cells.
Among the new findings, 2-ACBs were shown to promote tumor
development in rat colons. Also, scientists discovered that they could
not adequately account for most of a dose of 2-ACBs fed to rats. While
very small amounts of 2-ACBs were detected in their fat, most of the
chemicals could not be recovered, implying that they are either stored
in other parts of the body or transformed into other compounds. The 2-
ACBs are formed when foods that contain fat are irradiated, such as
beef, chicken, eggs and certain fruits--all of which can legally be
irradiated and sold to consumers.
There is even less research into the long-term health effects
experienced by children who are exposed to toxic chemicals in foods.
Dr. William Au, a toxicologist at the Department of Preventive Medicine
and Community Health, University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston,
has argued that the lack of understanding regarding the ill effects
suffered by children who consume toxic chemicals in foods extends to
``the toxicological risk with respect to eating irradiated food.''
Implementing Section 4201 (l) of the Farm Bill will create the
largest mass-feeding of irradiated food to children over an extended
period of time ever in the history in the world.

Food and Drug Administration
We are concerned about the lack of funding for the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) for import re-inspections. Even after the
additional funding the agency received in fiscal year 2003 to hire more
staff, the agency is only capable of re-inspecting a paltry 1.3 percent
of imported food over which it has jurisdiction. This needs to be
addressed with additional funding, with the goal of reaching at least
the 20 percent re-inspection rate that USDA's FSIS is able to perform
for imported meat and poultry products. Furthermore, FDA should be
granted the same authority that FSIS currently possesses to inspect
foreign establishments that can export their food to the United States.
We are also concerned with the repeated attempts to weaken the
labeling for irradiated foods. The FDA has visited this issue
repeatedly since 1997--primarily at the direction of Congress. Each
time, the FDA finds that consumers do not see eye-to-eye on this issue
with the irradiation industry and their supporters in Congress. It
seems that there are those who want to keep on trying until we get it
wrong.
In the conference committee report that accompanied the fiscal year
2001 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, the conferees stated:

The conferees expect FDA to make final the regulations regarding
labeling of irradiated foods by March 1, 2002, and report to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the status by November 15,
2000. This agreement changes the dates proposed for final regulations
by the House of September 30, 2001, and by the Senate of October 30,
2001.

In its report to the Appropriations Committees, the FDA explained
that it had published an Advanced Notice for Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)
in 1999 on food irradiation labeling as the agency was directed to do
under the FDA Modernization Act conference committee report in 1997. In
evaluating the comments that the agency received from the ANPR, FDA
stated:

The majority of these comments were letters that urged the agency
to retain special labeling for irradiated foods but did not address the
specific issues on which FDA requested comment. A preliminary analysis
of the comments suggest no consensus about what alternative language
for disclosure of irradiation processing would be truthful and not
misleading. Because the public comments provided no clear direction for
agency rulemaking, FDA believes that 1999 ANPR fulfills the Agency's
obligations under the FDAMA Conference Report.

The FDA went on to say in its report to Congress that it intended
to impanel consumer focus groups to attempt to obtain further guidance
on the labeling issue.
During the summer of 2001, the FDA contracted with ORC Macro, a
public opinion research firm, to organize six consumer focus groups.
Two of these focus groups were held in Calverton, Maryland (suburban
Washington, DC); two were held in Minneapolis, Minnesota; and two were
held in Sacramento, California.
In all of the focus groups, the moderator attempted to make a
strong association between pasteurization and irradiation. This was
significant since there have been some food irradiation proponents who
have argued that a more appropriate term to describe irradiation on
product labeling is either ``cold pasteurization'' or ``electronic
pasteurization.''
In a 2002 report to Congress, the FDA summarized the results of
those focus groups:

Most of the participants viewed alternate terms such as ``cold
pasteurization'' and ``electronic pasteurization'' as misleading,
because they appeared to conceal rather than disclose information about
irradiated food products. Participants did not see the current
disclosure labeling as a warning . . . Everyone agreed that irradiated
foods should be labeled honestly. They indicated that the current FDA
required statement is a straightforward way for labeling irradiated
foods.

Furthermore, in his 2002 testimony before the House Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and
Related Agencies Appropriations, Dr. Lester Crawford, Deputy
Commissioner of the FDA stated: (W)hen we did focus groups at FDA on
cold pasteurization, the general feeling of the average citizen was
that this was kind of a ruse or a means to conceal the fact that the
food had been irradiated. And so we are kind of back to square one. We
don't have a good synonym for irradiation and we would like to have
one. We don't want to mislead the public.
The public has been very consistent on this issue--whether through
the focus groups conducted for USDA or FDA or through comments
solicited by FDA. There have already been too many resources devoted to
this issue within FDA. The driving force ought to be what the consumers
believe to be honest and straightforward labeling--not what some in
industry think it ought to be. The FDA has a much more important
mission to accomplish than devising ways to confuse and mislead
consumers.
______

Prepared Statement of Easter Seals

Easter Seals appreciates the opportunity to report on the notable
accomplishments of the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service (CSREES) AgrAbility Program and request that funding
for the AgrAbility Program be increased to $4.6 million in fiscal year
2004.
The AgrAbility Program is an essential, unduplicated, hands-on
resource for farmers, ranchers, and farmworkers with disabilities and
their families. AgrAbility is the only USDA program dedicated
exclusively to helping agricultural producers with disabilities. It
demonstrates the value of public-private partnership by securing
donations of funds, talent, and materials to magnify the impact of a
modest federal investment. The fiscal year 2003 appropriation of $4.2
million is funding 24 state projects.

DISABILITY & AGRICULTURE

Agricultural production is one of the nation's most hazardous
occupations. According to the National Institute on Occupational Safety
and Health, each year, approximately 182,500 agricultural workers
sustain disabling injuries, about 5 percent of which permanently impair
their ability to perform essential farm tasks. Tens of thousands more
become disabled as a result of non-farm injuries, illnesses, other
health conditions, and the aging process. Nationwide, over 13 million
Americans living in rural areas have a chronic or permanent disability.
Hundreds of thousands of farmers, ranchers, and agricultural workers
who have disabilities are a vital part of rural America and the
agricultural workforce.
The presence of a disability jeopardizes rural and agricultural
futures for many of these individuals. Rural isolation, a tradition of
self-reliance, and gaps in rural service delivery systems frequently
prevent agricultural workers with disabilities from taking advantage of
growing expertise in modifying farm operations, adapting equipment,
promoting farmstead accessibility, and using assistive technologies to
safely accommodate disability in agricultural and rural settings. Yet,
with some assistance, the majority of disabled agricultural workers can
continue to earn their livelihoods in agriculture and participate fully
in rural community life.

AGRABILITY'S ROLE AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

The AgrAbility Program was established under the 1990 Farm Bill in
response to the needs of farmers, ranchers, and farmworkers with
disabilities. The Farm Bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to
make grants to Extension Services for conducting collaborative
education and assistance programs for farmers with disabilities through
state projects and related national training, technical assistance, and
information dissemination. Easter Seals is proud to be a partner with
the University of Wisconsin-Extension Cooperative Extension to provide
the national training and technical assistance portion of the
AgrAbility Program. Thousands of people in states with and without
state AgrAbility projects are aided through this initiative.
AgrAbility combines the expertise of the Extension Service and
disability organization staffs to provide people with disabilities
working in agriculture the specialized services that they need to
safely accommodate their disabilities in everyday farm and ranch
operations. AgrAbility received strong bipartisan support during the
2002 reauthorization of the Farm Security and Investment Act of 2002,
and was extended through fiscal year 2007. The $6 million authorization
level for AgrAbility was continued.
Under the statute, state and multi-state AgrAbility projects engage
Extension Service agents, disability experts, rural professionals, and
volunteers to offer an array of services, including: identifying and
referring farmers with disabilities; providing on-the-farm technical
assistance for agricultural workers on adapting and using farm
equipment, buildings, and tools; restructuring farm operations;
providing agriculture-based education to prevent further injury and
disability; and, upgrading the skills of Extension Service agents and
other rural professionals to better promote success in agricultural
production for people with disabilities.
In 2003, USDA received an allocation from Congress of $4.2 million.
These funds are supporting 24 state projects, the national project, and
USDA-CSREES administration of the Program. The state projects funded
with fiscal 2003 money are California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont (with New Hampshire), Virginia, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin.
AgrAbility provides customized assistance to farmers, ranchers, and
farmworkers with disabilities and their families. The nature and degree
of assistance depends on the individual's disability, needs, and
agricultural operation.
Between April 1991 and March 2002, AgrAbility Projects in 31 states
along with the national project accomplished the following:
--Provided assistance, including nearly 10,000 on-site visits, to
over 11,000 farmers, ranchers, farmworkers or their family
members affected by disability.
--Educated over 200,000 agricultural, rehabilitation, and health
professionals on safely accommodating disability in
agriculture.
--Recruited and trained more than 6,000 volunteers and peer
supporters to assist agricultural producers with disabilities
and their families.
--Reached 9,500,000 people through more than 8,500 exhibits,
displays, and demonstrations to increase awareness of the
challenges affecting and resources available to people with
disabilities working in agriculture.
--In 2000, the National AgrAbility technical assistance and education
grant was awarded to Easter Seals national headquarters and the
University of Wisconsin-Extension Cooperative Extension. This
new partnership is generating innovative and effective
activities at the national level that will have a significant
impact on the effectiveness of the state AgrAbility projects
and the lives of agricultural workers with disabilities.
However, these numbers can never reflect the real difference that
AgrAbility is making in people's lives. Jon Hagen of Waterville Iowa is
a great example of this. Jon is a crop and dairy farmer who became
paraplegic in 1998 as a result of an on the farm accident. AgrAbility
has helped Jon return to farming and he can now provide a brighter
future for his children. AgrAbility worked with Jon to add a lift to
help him get in and out of his truck, add a sling lift to assist in
getting in and out of his tractor, select an appropriate electric
wheelchair for an agricultural environment, and to connect him with
peer support that assisted him in transitioning to farming with a
disability.

IMPACT OF CURRENT FUNDING LEVELS

A funding floor of $150,000 per state was set in the 1990 Farm Bill
to assure that the state programs were appropriately resourced to meet
diverse, statewide agricultural accommodation needs. In the 2002
reauthorization of the Farm Bill, the Committee reaffirmed a commitment
to that funding floor of $150,000 per state. Because funding had not
approached the $6 million authorized level prior to fiscal year 2002,
however, state projects had only received on average slightly under
$100,000 per state. The funding increase for AgrAbility in fiscal year
2002 provided USDA with the ability to fund projects at the $150,000
base level. Easter Seals strongly supports full funding of state
projects to assure that they continue to be effective for farmers with
disabilities.
AgrAbility projects are underfunded relative to need and objective.
At the current funding level, only a few staff can be hired to provide
statewide education and assistance to farmers with disabilities,
educate rural professionals, recruit volunteers, and work with rural
businesses on disability-related issues. Rising demand for services and
the great distances that must be traveled to reach farmers and ranchers
severely strains even the most dedicated of AgrAbility's outstanding
staff. Easter Seals fears that failure to invest adequately in this
worthwhile program will ultimately cause it to falter.
An additional consequence of limited funding is that in every grant
cycle some states with existing AgrAbility programs and a demonstrated
need for services are not renewed and are forced to discontinue
services to farmers with disabilities in that state. These states often
have difficulty obtaining the access to the limited public and private
funding sources that the federal seed money granted them. More than a
dozen states have sought AgrAbility funding without success. Each of
these states can demonstrate significant unmet needs among farm and
ranch families affected by disability that AgrAbility could potentially
address.
The fiscal year 2004 request of $4.6 million would allow USDA to
(a) continue to fund states up to the $150,000 base level and add new
projects in states currently unserved by AgrAbility or (b) increase the
budgets of currently funded projects to allow much-needed expansion of
existing services.

FUNDING REQUEST

The need for AgrAbility services has never been greater, and its
accomplishments to date are remarkable by any standard. Easter Seals is
proud to contribute to the ongoing success of the USDA-CSREES
AgrAbility Program. Please support the allocation of at least $4.6
million for AgrAbility in fiscal year 2004 to ensure that this valuable
public-private partnership continues to serve rural Americans with
disabilities and their families. Thank you for this opportunity to
share the successes and needs of the USDA AgrAbility Program.

GRANT DISCLOSURE

Easter Seals receives the following federal grants:
--Project ACTION, $3.0 million from the U.S. Department of
Transportation to help transit providers implement the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and to promote
transportation accessibility for people with disabilities;
--AgrAbility, $290,554 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to
promote success in agriculture for people with disabilities and
their families; and
Eater Seals' state and local affiliated organizations, which are
separately incorporated, receive funding from a variety of federal and
state agencies to support their local programs. We do not, however,
have specific information regarding their funding sources.
______

Prepared Statement of the Federation of Animal Science Societies

The Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS) is the science-
based voice for animal agriculture, animal products and food systems.
FASS represents over 8,500 livestock and poultry scientists in the
United States who conduct research, teaching and extension programs in
academia and industry. Member organizations of FASS are the American
Dairy Science Association, the American Society of Animal Science and
the Poultry Science Association.
We applaud the efforts of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee, which resulted in the National Research Initiative (NRI)
Competitive Grants Program being funded at $166 million for fiscal year
2003, an increase of nearly 40 percent over fiscal year 2002! For
fiscal year 2004, we ask for your continued support in the following
areas.
First, FASS urges you to support the President's fiscal year 2003
proposal of $240 million for the NRI. The annual rate of return to
publicly funded agriculture research is 35 percent, as reported in a
recent study by the USDA's Economic Research Service. Therefore,
increased funding of agriculture research would benefit our U.S.
economy. Furthermore, funding the NRI at $240 million would support the
recent finding in the National Academy of Sciences report ``Frontiers
in Agricultural Research'' that total competitive grants should be
substantially increased to, and sustained at, 20-30 percent of the
total USDA research portfolio.
We must maintain and continue to support research programs such as
the NRI. The NRI is a highly respected, competitive grants program that
funds research necessary to improve livestock and crop production, and
the processes that deliver quality food products from farm to table
while protecting and enhancing the nation's environment and natural
resources. Recent security threats facing America require new and
expanded agricultural research to protect our nation's food processing
and distribution network, waters, forests and rural communities.
Federal funding of this type of research is essential to insure the
future security, safety and sustainability of America's food and fiber
system.
Second, FASS requests that any new monies appropriated for the NRI,
as in 2003, would allow the Secretary the discretion to apply up to 20
percent towards carrying out an integrated research, extension and
education competitive grants program under the same conditions and
terms as those provided for in the fiscal year 2003 spending bill.
Multidisciplinary research efforts continue to have a promising future
in providing new knowledge and solutions to many issues facing our food
system.
Third, FASS requests your support for animal genomics sequencing
through the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) of $5 million.
Furthermore, we request your support for the President's fiscal year
2004 increase within the NRI targeted for animal genomics research of
$10 million.
FASS supports increased funding for animal genomics research. We
applaud the USDA's leadership role in multi-agency collaborative
efforts in the field of animal genomics. Increasing our understanding
of farm animal genomics will enhance the future of animal agriculture.
Animal genomics will lead the way for more nutritious, healthy, safe
and affordable livestock products for a growing world population.
Animal genomics research generates the most fundamental knowledge
regarding the basic biology of the various agricultural animal species.
Genomics research on the important food animal species will enable
powerful applications in the future, including more effective and rapid
genetic improvement program, more effective and efficient vaccines for
disease resistance, and more nutritious animal food products. In
addition, there is future potential to design animals to produce
specific pharmaceuticals for human use, and which are more
environmentally friendly. Both the ARS and NRI funding levels are
important to take full advantage of the opportunities for USDA to
collaborate with many partners.
The future viability of our nation's food system, and indeed the
health of all Americans, will depend on the investment in science we
make today. Congress must enhance funding for agricultural research to
assure Americans of a safe and affordable food supply and to provide
for the next generation of research scientists.
Mr. Bennett, we urge you to support the President's fiscal year
2003 proposal of $240 million for the NRI and funding for animal
genomics research of $5 million for ARS and $10 million targeted within
the NRI. The livestock and poultry scientists of FASS seek to assist
you in your efforts to improve agricultural research capacity. Please
do not hesitate to contact us: Dr. Barbara P. Glenn, Executive Vice
President-Scientific Liaison at [email protected], 301-571-1875.
______

Prepared Statement of Florida State University

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Members of the
Subcommittee for this opportunity to present testimony. I would like to
take a moment to briefly acquaint you with The Florida State
University.
Located in Tallahassee, the Capitol of Florida, FSU is a Carnegie
doctoral/research-extensive university with rapidly growing research
activities and programs. The University serves as a center for advanced
graduate and professional studies, exemplary research, and top-quality
undergraduate programs. Faculty members at FSU maintain a strong
commitment to quality in teaching, to performance of research and
creative activities, while retaining a strong commitment to public
service for the State and Nation. Among the faculty are numerous
recipients of national and international honors, including Nobel
laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners, and members of the National Academy
of Science. Our scientists and engineers do excellent research, have
strong interdisciplinary interests, and often work closely with
industrial partners in the commercialization of the results of their
research. Having been designated as a Carnegie Research I University
several years ago, The Florida State University had $147.9 million in
research support this past year.
One of our recent highlights is the fact that FSU has initiated a
new medical school, the first in the U.S. in over two decades. Our
emphasis is on training doctors as primary care physicians, with a
particular focus on geriatric medicine--consistent with the
demographics of our state.
With a student body of 37,000, we attract students from every
county in Florida, every state in the nation, and more than 100 foreign
countries. The University is committed to high admission standards that
ensure quality and diversity in its student body, which currently
includes some 278 National Merit and National Achievement Scholars, as
well as students with superior creative talent. At The Florida State
University, we are very proud of our successes as well as our emerging
reputation as one of the nation's top public universities.
Mr. Chairman, let me tell you about a project we are pursuing this
year through the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
In fiscal year 2001, Congress passed the Federal Crop Insurance
Act, which included funding of partnerships for Risk Management
Development and Implementation. This legislation authorized the USDA,
working with NOAA, to enter into partnerships for the purpose of
increasing the availability of tools for crop loss mitigation. The
partnerships give priority for producers of agricultural commodities
for specialty crops and under-served agricultural commodities. Congress
authorized the program through fiscal year 2008.
The Federal Government, which sets crop insurance rates, needs to
utilize new cost-effective ways to reduce risk by using modern ideas
such as El Nino-La Nina climate variability; this would allow more
appropriate and fair pricing of premiums for crop insurance. The
Florida Climate Research Consortium, which consists of Florida State
University, the University of Florida, and the University of Miami, has
been at the forefront of this climate prediction work. The Consortium
has worked in Florida and throughout the Southeastern U.S., with
support from NOAA, to develop new methods to predict the consequences
of climate variability. More recently, in actual real-life tests, these
methods and data have been applied to the problem farmers raising
specialty crops face relative to rainfall; the efforts have also
tremendous implication for officials in their fight against forest
fires. In both instances and with the support of Florida's Commissioner
of Agriculture, use of these methods and their application to these
challenges has been seen as successful and well received.
In this consortium, Florida State University will provide the
climate forecasts and risk reduction methodology. The University of
Florida will provide crop models for predicting the climate variability
effects on selected crops. The University of Miami will provide the
economic modeling of the agricultural system. Each university will
provide appropriate expert advice on interactions with farmers. In
particular, the expertise of the Florida Agricultural Extension Service
will be utilized. Additional collaborators will be added in fiscal year
2004.
FSU, on behalf of the FL Climate Consortium, is seeking $3.5M in
fiscal year 2004 for this activity through the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Utilization of these tools and their application to
agricultural problems in this project has the strong support of Florida
Commissioner of Agriculture, Charles Bronson.
Mr. Chairman, this is just one of the many exciting activities
going on at Florida State University that will make important
contributions to solving some key concerns our nation faces today. Your
support would be appreciated, and, again, thank you for an opportunity
to present these views for your consideration.
______

Prepared Statement of Friends of Agricultural Research--Beltsville,
Inc.

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to present our statement supporting funding for the
Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and
especially for the Agency's flagship research facility, the Henry A.
Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), in Maryland.
Our organization--Friends of Agricultural Research--Beltsville--is
dedicated to supporting and promoting the Center's agricultural
research, outreach, and educational mission.
In keeping with the seriousness of the times, our testimony this
year will address only two major themes. The first lays out a vision
for a Center for Systematics--a vision for a partnership of excellence
based in Beltsville in cooperation with the Smithsonian Institution's
National Museum of Natural History and the University of Maryland.
Our second theme addresses the urgent need to continue support for
specific research areas mandated by the Congress in fiscal years 2001,
2002, or 2003. These so-called add-ons attend to critical research
needs that were recognized by this Subcommittee and others. We will
list them with brief descriptions below.

Center for Systematics (The Oxford English Dictionary defines
Systematics as the branch of biology that deals with
interrelationships of different species and their
classification; systematic zoology, botany, etc.; taxonomy)
Please consider for a moment these hypothetical scenarios from the
draft report of a select committee assembled last November to evaluate
the state and future of systematics at Beltsville.
A pest is discovered in Iowa for the first time, devastating the
corn and soybean crops. What is it? Where did it come from? How can it
be eliminated?
Bioterrorists are planning to introduce new pests that will destroy
vegetable and fruit production in the United States. What organisms are
most likely to be used? What strategies can be implemented to combat
them? How can action agencies detect these organisms when they cross
U.S. borders?
An invasive species of weed new to science is found to be
widespread in Florida; its impact is so severe that five endangered
species have become extinct and 30 other once-widespread species are
now on the endangered list and their future is bleak. What is the plant
species? Who will give it a name and more importantly who will know
about other related species? Where does it come from? Are there
organisms that feed on this weed in its native land that could be used
to reduce its impact in Florida?
In each of these (hypothetical) cases, systematics provides the
answers. But the field of systematics is in a serious crisis. Just at a
time when these kinds of information and expertise are desperately
needed, the community of systematists is diminishing at an alarming
rate. Unless the trend can be reversed, the crisis in systematics will
unfortunately mean a new crisis for the safety of U.S. agriculture,
farmers, and the environment.
The Executive Summary sums up the select committee's findings and
recommendations in these words:
``The Beltsville Systematics Summit was convened in November of
2002, with participation of national and international experts, to
devise a plan to avert the looming crisis in U.S. agriculture. The plan
is centered on the historically strong commitment of the Federal
government to support systematics, and the concentration of 80 percent
of that effort in the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center research
programs. This report of the Systematics Summit states the case for
urgent and immediate action to forestall the crisis. It provides a
vision to assure that Beltsville Systematics programs are able to
fulfill their Federal commitment to a strong systematics foundation for
U.S. agriculture and agricultural research in the future. The long-term
vision is that ``Beltsville systematics programs will be a powerful
force affecting the security and productivity of U.S. agriculture. As
national and global leaders, BARC systematists will create programs
strategically and synergistically integrating Research, Collections,
Communications Technology, and Training.''
If a strong and immediate commitment to that vision is made, the
outcomes will assure that
--new knowledge on all agriculturally important organisms, both
beneficial and detrimental, accumulates rapidly and is made
quickly available for practical use;
--collections are safely maintained, in perpetuity, in modern and
upgraded facilities;
--collections-based information flows unimpeded between university,
Federal, and nongovernmental partners through constantly
evolving communication systems; and
--a strong cadre of systematists to support Beltsville and
collaborators' programs exists as a result of long-term
strategic partnerships with other institutions to anticipate
and fulfill critical training needs.
The culmination of the long-term vision is the development of a
Center for Systematics of unparalleled excellence, nationally and
internationally, that provides a cohesive and responsive base to United
States and global agriculture needs.
Lack of a strong commitment, or inability to provide adequate
funding, will mean that the United States leaves its borders and its
agricultural communities vulnerable to invasive species, emerging
diseases and intentional destructive actions using agricultural
biological agents. It will forego the opportunity to gain knowledge of
organisms that can sustain U.S. agriculture before it is too late.
Tomorrow's needs cannot continue to be met with current resources.
Demands on BARC systematics programs can only be met through
significant increases in funding to prepare for the future. A well-
designed plan to assure that is needed.
This report of the Beltsville Systematics Summit lays the
groundwork and provides a framework for that plan to be developed in
collaboration with a consortium of partners critical to its success.
BARC systematics programs provide the front line of defense to both
protect and expand U.S. agriculture. Only by adequate funding to
support the vision can the United States be secure in providing a safe
and adequate food supply for its citizens and a healthy and sustainable
agricultural enterprise for its producers.''

Congressionally Mandated Programs at BARC
Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory.--This venerable Beltsville
laboratory and its predecessors have contributed over a century of
steady genetic progress to America's milk production industry. Its
reach is worldwide, helping producers everywhere make better informed
genetic decisions and promoting export of American germplasm and
breeding stock.
For many years America's dairy cows have steadily increased milk
production at the rate of about 45 gallons per year. Approximately two-
thirds of those increases can be traced to genetic progress. Much of
the credit for that success stems from the cooperative national and
international genetic evaluation programs of BARC's award winning
Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory. The future of dairy industry
will be greatly influenced by the research of the Animal Improvement
Programs Laboratory. In recent years, the Laboratory staff has
decreased as inflation and salary increases have eaten away at
operating funds. We recommend continued funding support for the
Laboratory.
Barley Health Foods Research.--Barley contains carbohydrates called
beta-glucans that help control blood sugar and cholesterol. We
recommend continued support for research to determine if barley-
containing foods may affect the risks of such chronic conditions as
cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity. This research is needed
to assess the bioavailability and efficacy of food components found in
barley and to identify foods, health practices, and attitudes
associated with successful maintenance of weight loss.
Biomineral Soil Amendments for Nematode Control.--Losses to soil
nematodes cost farmers billions every year. The soybean cyst nematode
alone can cut soybean yields by 10 percent, often more. Citrus and
vegetable crops also are vulnerable to intensive nematode damage.
Growers are squeezed by expanding nematode infestations, nematicide
resistance, and de-registration of traditional nematicides because of
environmental concerns. BARC in cooperation with industry and others is
pursuing new, more effective approaches to nematode control. Promising
research lines include using such re-cyclable soil amendment as animal
wastes, composts, and mineral by-products. We recommend continuing the
increased funding for these promising approaches.
Foundry Sand By-Products Utilization.--Municipalities and
industries generate vast quantities of by-products. By-products, such
as foundry sand from the metal castings industry, have potential uses
in agricultural and horticultural production processes. The Animal
Manure and By-Products Laboratory will use the funding to identify
beneficial new uses and assess risks to human health, safety, or the
environment from using foundry sand in agriculture. A new soil
scientist will be hired to support this work. We recommend continuation
of this funding.
Poultry Diseases.--The mission of the Parasite Biology,
Epidemiology, and Systematics Laboratory is to reduce the economic
costs of parasites in livestock and poultry. Coccidiosis causes the
greatest economic loss to the meat chicken industry from disease. But
traditional chemical controls are becoming ineffective; and new non-
chemical control methods are needed. New funding will be used to
conduct functional genomics and proteomics analysis of coccidia to
identify potential proteins that can be used in diagnostic tests and as
targets for potential vaccine development. We recommend continuation of
this funding.
Biomedical Plant Materials.--There is a growing need for
functionally active, protective molecules for human and animal
pathogens. We need them at lower cost and without risk to humans,
animals, or the environment. Such molecules include recombinant
antibodies, vaccines, and enzymes. Also, we need non-contaminated,
lower-cost, more reliable diagnostic reagents.
In recent years, scientists have produced biomedical reagents from
plants in the laboratory. The potential benefits are huge. For one
example, replacing poultry vaccine injections with edible plant-
produced vaccines would substantially lower poultry production costs.
Beltsville is uniquely equipped to develop necessary systems and to
test their efficacy in cooperation with other ARS facilities working on
livestock and poultry diseases. This is a cooperative project with the
Biotechnology Foundation, Inc., in Philadelphia. We recommend
continuation of this funding.
National Germplasm Resources System.--This laboratory supports the
national database that provides data storage and retrieval systems for
collecting and disseminating germplasm information. It provides
accurate taxonomy, transport, geographic, evaluation, inventory, and
cooperator information for plant and animal germplasm holdings
nationwide. This is an ARS mission-critical activity. We recommend
continuation of funding.
Bovine Genetics.--Somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning)
technology has tremendous biomedical and agricultural potential. Yet
the frequency of successful births from cloning has been relatively
low. Many pregnancies fail before completing gestation. New funding
will support collaborative research by the Gene Evaluation and Mapping
Laboratory and the University of Illinois aimed at improving cloning
efficiency. A new Molecular Biologist is being hired to support this
effort. We recommend continuation of this funding.
IR-4: Registration of Minor Use Pesticides.--``Minor crops'' have
great economic value, but are not among the top ten crops like corn and
soybeans that provide huge markets for pesticide manufacturers.
Manufacturers often do not see a large enough market to justify the
expense of doing the research needed to register a pesticide for a
``minor crop.'' Without the IR-4 program, growers would have fewer
options for pest control. The Beltsville Environmental Quality
Laboratory operates a minor crop pesticide residue laboratory. This lab
vigorously enforces EPA-prescribed protocols for all experimental
procedures, and prepares comprehensive final reports. New funds enhance
the overall mission of the Agency's IR-4 program. We recommend that
this funding be continued.
Invasive Species Initiative.--Globalization has lowered trade
barriers over much of the world. It also has contributed to the ease
with which exotic organisms--or invasive species--enter U.S. habitats
and environments. Invading pest species not only create ecological and
economical problems, they also threaten biodiversity and the financial
stability of U.S. agriculture. Once invaders become successful
competitors in natural or agricultural ecosystems, producers must spend
millions every year to combat them. Collateral damage, such as loss of
native diversity, may not be evident for years. Moreover, exotic
species represent a biosecurity risk through deliberate introduction
into the United States.
Beltsville laboratories are at the vanguard of invasive species
research, covering prevention, detection, identification, and control.
Invasive species research at BARC includes: insects and other
arthropods, plants, pathogenic organisms, and parasitic diseases.
Certain labs provide stand-by, 24-hour identification services for
possible alien intruders. Others provide basic taxonomic information
targeting preventive and control measures for use before or after
invasive species have become established. Beltsville can point to many
past successes in the battle against invasive species. Overall,
Beltsville has the strongest invasive species programs in the nation.
We strongly support this recommendation.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes our statement. We are grateful for
your past support of the BARC mission. We urge support for the Center
for Systematics as it may come before the Subcommittee. We further
recommend continuation of the Congressionally mandated research we have
listed.
Mr. Chairman, for the past several years our organization has
submitted similar supporting testimony to this Subcommittee. As we
prepare this year's testimony in the face of anxious times, we are at
once mindful of and profoundly grateful for the freedom to petition
Congress on matters that strike us as fundamental to the security and
future of America's agricultural bounty.
Lastly, we again thank you for the opportunity to present our
testimony.
______

Prepared Statement of the Grocery Manufacturers of America

On behalf of the member companies of the Grocery Manufacturers of
America (GMA), I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony to the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development
and Related Agencies. We ask that you support the Administration's
request for funding for critical food safety functions at the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) and the Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS), as well as the proposed funding for nutrition activities at the
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS).
GMA is the world's largest association of food, beverage and
consumer product companies. With U.S. sales of more than $460 billion,
GMA members employ more than 2.5 million workers in all 50 states. The
organization applies legal, scientific and political expertise from its
member companies to vital food, nutrition and public policy issues
affecting the industry. Led by a board of 42 Chief Executive Officers,
GMA speaks for food and consumer product manufacturers and sales
agencies at the state, federal and international levels on legislative
and regulatory issues. The association also leads efforts to increase
productivity, efficiency and growth in the food, beverage and consumer
products industry.
GMA particularly supports increased funding for the Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), whose role is invaluable in
ensuring the public that the United States continues to have the safest
and most wholesome food supply in the world. The Center has played an
integral role in continuing to enhance the safety and security of the
food supply, particularly since the tragic September 11th terrorist
attacks. The additional $20.5 million in the FDA's budget proposal for
counter terrorism and food safety will continue the government's
commitment to providing additional resources to further improve the
agency's capabilities to ensure the safety of the food supply.
Specifically, the proposed increase includes funds to develop and
implement a food registration system authorized in the Public Health
Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. GMA
worked closely with Congress and the Administration throughout the
legislative process and submitted pre-proposal comments to FDA on the
four regulations that are in development. We have reviewed the draft
proposals on prior notice of imported foods and facility registration,
and recently filed additional comments highlighting some substantive
concerns we have regarding the practical implementation of the final
rules. We are awaiting the draft proposals on records maintenance and
administrative detention, and will continue to work with FDA to ensure
that the bioterrorism regulations will maintain the highest possible
level of food safety without disrupting the U.S. food supply.
In communication with this Committee for the past several years, we
urged you to provide FDA with funds necessary to cover FDA's government
cost-of-living increase; we reiterate that request for this
appropriations cycle. This funding will provide cost-of-living
adjustments as well as support to the additional staff hired in fiscal
year 2002 for counterterrorism activities. Maintaining and adding
appropriately skilled and trained technical staff is consistent with
the expanding mission of FDA in this new climate.
At USDA, we support the USDA/ARS nutrition monitoring program and
ask the committee to continue to appropriate the funds necessary for
this effort. The information gathered in this survey is invaluable to
both the public and private sectors, and we ask for the committee's
continued support.
GMA also supports efforts at USDA to increase funding for capacity
building at the Foreign Agricultural Service--particularly to increase
U.S. employment opportunities in international organizations like the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Bodies
like the FAO are playing an increasingly influential role in the
international regulatory and trade arena, and it is essential that the
United States be adequately represented in order to ensure that
science-based policies are reflected at the international level.
GMA also supports USDA's budget request for nutrition and feeding
programs, including the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and the
national school lunch programs. Increased funding for nutrition and
obesity prevention programs for children and families will help improve
the overall health and well-being of our nation.
GMA also supports the record level of funding for USDA's food
safety programs in the President's budget for fiscal year 2004, which
includes an increase of $42 million for FSIS--a 23 percent increase in
food safety activities since fiscal year 2000. However, GMA strongly
opposes USDA's proposal for $122 million in controversial new user fees
for inspections of meat and poultry plants, on top of the $102 million
in existing fees. USDA plant inspections help prevent the spread of
bacteria that can cause potentially fatal reactions. As a national
health service, these inspections should be funded by general
appropriations rather than user fees.
We recognize that the confidence of the public in our food supply
depends both on our industry's continuing commitment to safety and
quality and on the ability of USDA and FDA to work with us to achieve
this. We support FDA's mission to protect the public health, and we
urge you to provide the funds necessary to do this. As always, if we
may be of any assistance as you proceed with your work, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Thank you for your consideration of our views.
______

Prepared Statement of The Humane Society of the United States

As the largest animal protection organization in the country, we
appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee on fiscal year 2004 funding items of great importance to
The Humane Society of the United States and its more than 7 million
supporters nationwide.

ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL WELFARE LAWS

We are grateful for the Committee's outstanding support in fiscal
year 2003 for improved enforcement by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture of key animal welfare laws, and we urge you to ``hold the
line'' in fiscal year 2004 so that this effort can be sustained. Your
leadership is making a great difference in helping to protect the
welfare of millions of animals across the country, including those at
commercial breeding facilities, laboratories, zoos, circuses, airlines,
and slaughterhouses. As you know, better enforcement will also benefit
people by helping to prevent: (1) injuries to slaughterhouse workers
from animals struggling in pain; (2) orchestrated dogfights and
cockfights that often involve illegal gambling, drug traffic, and human
violence; (3) the sale of unhealthy pets by commercial breeders
commonly referred to as ``puppy mills''; (4) laboratory conditions that
may impair the scientific integrity of animal based research; (5) risks
of disease transmission from, and dangerous encounters with, wild
animals in or during public exhibition; and (6) injuries and deaths of
pets on commercial airline flights due to mishandling and exposure to
adverse environmental conditions.
For fiscal year 2004, we want to ensure that the important work
made possible by the fiscal year 2003 budget is continued, that newly
hired and trained inspectors will be able to stay on the job, and that
resources will be used in the most effective ways possible to carry out
these key laws. Specific areas of concern are as follows:

Office of Inspector General/$800,000 Increase for Animal Fighting
Enforcement
In last year's Farm Bill, Congress enacted provisions that were
overwhelmingly supported in both chambers to close loopholes in the
Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regarding cockfighting and dogfighting. Since
1976, when Congress first prohibited most interstate and foreign
commerce of animals for fighting, USDA has pursued no cockfighting
cases and only three dogfighting cases, despite rampant activity across
the country. USDA has apparently received innumerable tips from
informants and requests to assist with State and local prosecutions,
but has routinely ignored or declined such requests. It is time for
USDA to take seriously its responsibility to enforce the portion of the
AWA dealing with animal fighting ventures. Dogfighting and cockfighting
are barbaric activities in which animals are drugged to heighten their
aggression and forced to keep fighting even after they've suffered
grievous injuries, such as pierced lungs and gouged eyes. Animal
fighting is almost always associated with illegal gambling, and also
often involves illegal drug traffic and violence toward people. Dogs
bred and trained to fight endanger public safety. Cockfighting has been
linked with the recent outbreak of Exotic Newcastle Disease that has
already destroyed many poultry flocks and cost taxpayers more than $40
million for containment and compensation, with costs estimated to rise
as high as $250-$500 million.
Given the dangerous nature of animal fighting enforcement work, we
believe that the department's chief law enforcement arm--the Office of
Inspector General (OIG)--is best suited to lead this effort. We
therefore respectfully request an increase of $800,000 for the OIG to
focus on animal fighting cases and inclusion of bill language directing
the Secretary to coordinate intelligence gathering, investigation, and
prosecution of animal fighting cases, pursuant to Section 26 of the
AWA, through the OIG, working with local and State law enforcement
personnel to complement their efforts, and drawing on other Federal
entities including the Attorney General, the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Services, and the Office of the General Counsel as needed.

Food Safety and Inspection Service/Humane Methods of Slaughter Act
(HMSA) Enforcement
We greatly appreciate the inclusion of $5 million in the fiscal
year 2003 bill to hire at least 50 inspectors whose sole responsibility
will be to ensure that livestock are treated humanely and rendered
unconscious before they are hung upside down, skinned, dismembered,
scalded, or killed. Having these new inspectors focus on unloading,
handling, stunning, and killing of animals will bring much-needed
attention to slaughter plant practices that have had little oversight
in recent years. We also appreciate your inclusion of language
specifying that the ongoing activities of 17 District Veterinary
Medical Specialists hired as a result of $1 million provided in the
fiscal year 2001 Supplemental should be limited to HMSA enforcement
rather than the various unrelated duties with which they had been
charged. And we commend you for directing the General Accounting Office
to review and report by July 1, 2003 on the scope and frequency of HMSA
violations, with ``recommendations on the extent to which additional
resources for inspection personnel, training, and other agency
functions are needed to properly regulate slaughter facilities in the
area of HMSA enforcement.''
There are nearly 900 Federally inspected slaughter plants in the
United States, handling millions of animals each day. In addition to
requesting continued funds in fiscal year 2004 to sustain at least 50
new inspectors and the 17 positions mentioned above, we hope you will
give full consideration to any recommendations the GAO may have for
enhancing enforcement of this important--and very basic--law. We also
urge that limited resources not be diverted by FSIS to rewrite the
regulations for this law. The existing HMSA regulations are clear and
strong. The problem has been a lack of enforcement, not flawed humane
handling standards. We would be very concerned about any attempt to
provide more discretion or control to industry in determining HMSA
compliance.

APHIS/Animal Welfare Enforcement
Thanks to appropriations increases in the past four years, Congress
has enabled USDA to begin to reverse a serious decline in the number of
AWA compliance inspections. However, the President's fiscal year 2004
budget proposal--which suggests $1.7 million less for the Animal Care
division than in fiscal year 2003--would fail to cover the salaries of
recently-hired inspectors and substantially undo the gains Congress has
made possible. Moreover, there is still much room for improvement. Many
facilities continue to escape oversight for long periods of time,
giving rise to situations that threaten both human and animal health
and safety. Nearly half of the sites that do get inspected are found to
have apparent violations of the minimum standards under the Act and,
therefore, follow-up visits are badly needed. We urge you to sustain
Animal Welfare funding at the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level of
$16.4 million, in order to keep the current number of inspectors
(approximately 100 to oversee about 10,000 sites).

APHIS/Horse Protection Enforcement
Congress enacted the Horse Protection Act in 1970 to end the
obvious cruelty of physically soring the feet and legs of show horses.
In an effort to exaggerate the high-stepping gate of Tennessee Walking
Horses, unscrupulous trainers use a variety of methods to inflict pain
on sensitive areas of the feet and legs for the effect of the leg-jerk
reaction that is popular among many in the show-horse industry. This
cruel practice continues unabated by the well-intentioned but seriously
understaffed APHIS inspection program. We appreciate the Committee's
help providing modest increases to bring this program close to its
authorized annual funding ceiling of $500,000, and hope you could
approve an additional $7,000 in fiscal year 2004 to reach that mark. We
also urge the Committee to oppose any effort to restrict USDA from
enforcing this law to the maximum extent possible.

Agricultural Research Service/Animal Welfare Information Center
We appreciate the Committee's support for the Animal Welfare
Information Center (AWIC), which helps ensure appropriate care for
animals in research, and compliance with standards on minimizing pain
and distress, preventing duplication of experiments, and reducing or
replacing animals in research when possible. For fiscal year 2004, we
hope you will sustain the gains made in recent years for AWIC's budget.

NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH AND BREAKFAST PROGRAMS/FORCED MOLTING OF EGG-
LAYING HENS AND ACCESS TO NON-DAIRY BEVERAGES

At the end of their production cycle, egg-laying hens in 75 percent
of U.S. flocks are starved until they lose 35 percent of their body
weight--typically for 5-14 days--in an effort to shock their systems
into a new egg-laying cycle. Once placed back on feed, those hens who
survive the starvation period will produce more and bigger eggs. Such
``forced molting'' is a threat to the health and safety of consumers,
because eggs produced at facilities using this high-stress practice
have a greatly increased incidence of Salmonella enteritidis (SE).
Forced molting is a husbandry strategy that extends the productive life
of those birds who survive, but it comes with severe consequences for
the health of consumers and for animal welfare.
Salmonella is the second most common food-borne illness in the
United States (an estimated 500-1,000 people die from it annually). SE
is the second most common Salmonella strain. Most SE infections are
caused by the consumption of eggs. Starvation causes severe stress to
hens and makes them highly susceptible to Salmonella infections.
Research indicates that hens who have been force molted in this way
shed significantly more SE bacteria than hens with access to food. Dr.
Fred Angulo, the chief medical epidemiologist for food-borne diseases
at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has determined that
outbreaks of SE in schools have been traced back to layer houses where
hens were molted using starvation. In 1998, USDA's FSIS Director wrote
that ``highly stressful forced molting practices . . . [f]or example,
extended starvation and water deprivation practices, lead to increased
shedding of Salmonella enteritidis (SE) by laying hens,'' and
recommended that ``egg producers eliminate forced molting practices and
adopt alternatives that reduce public health risks.''
Intentionally starving a hen so that she loses 35 percent of her
body weight is cruel. Almost every State anti-cruelty statute
specifically bars the deliberate starvation of animals, but this
standard is not typically enforced for routine animal husbandry.
Alternative methods to forced molting, which are more humane, safer,
and economically comparable, are available to the U.S. egg production
industry. Major fast food companies, including McDonald's, Burger King,
and Wendy's, have stopped buying eggs from farms that use forced
molting. It is time for Congress to ensure that meals provided at
public schools are at least as safe as fast food.
Under the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, schools
spent more than $14.2 million on fresh and raw eggs for food service
during the 1996-97 school year, according to a USDA study (the number
may well be higher now, since the breakfast program has greatly
expanded since that time). With three-quarters of all flocks in the
United States currently force molted, there is a very high risk that
school children are being exposed to SE bacteria. In 2000, the USDA
announced that it would no longer allow the use of downed animals in
the school lunch program because it could not count on the safety of
the meat. School districts incorporate Federal requirements (e.g., to
comply with nutritional guidelines, ``Buy American'' laws, and health
department inspections) in their detailed specifications for each food
item contained in their contracts.
We urge the Committee to include bill language barring the use of
USDA funds under the National School Lunch and School Breakfast
Programs for the purchase of eggs produced at facilities that force-
molt hens through deprivation of food or water.
One year ago, the Washington Post highlighted the injustices
associated with prohibiting schools from offering federally-subsidized
non-dairy beverages for students who cannot drink dairy milk for any
number of health, ethical or religious reasons. Schools can offer
alternatives to students who bring a doctor's note explaining why they
need a non-dairy beverage. However, the majority of students who are
lactose-intolerant are minority students--students who may not have
access to the kind of health care that would provide them with a
doctor's note for something as mundane as a lunch beverage.
Additionally, according to a recent poll conducted by the Vegetarian
Resource Group, 11 percent of children ages 8-17 in the United States
are vegetarians. The nutrition publication, Nutrition News Focus,
recently published an article stating ``Vegetarian children tend to be
thinner than omnivorous kids and this is almost certainly good, since
we are getting fatter as a nation and we are doing it earlier.'' It is
unfair to force students who choose the healthful option of
vegetarianism to go without a beverage simply because their ethics
dictate they not drink dairy milk. The National School Lunch and
Breakfast Programs should support a healthful diet for all students. We
urge the Committee to include bill language to provide nutritious
beverage options to dairy milk for students who either cannot or choose
not to drink dairy milk.

HOOP BARNS/LEOPOLD CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE--$325,000

The hoop barn is an emerging alternative for livestock production
that offers many advantages to the factory farm system of animal
housing. A typical hoop barn is shaped like a Quonset hut (a half
cylinder lying on its flat side) and contains a deep bedding of straw
or corn stalks. No individual cages confine the animals, and open ends,
which can be closed if weather requires, allow access to pasture.
Animals in hoop barns enjoy greater freedom of movement and have the
opportunity to interact socially.
Because they are not tightly confined in an overcrowded, high-
stress environment, animals in hoop barns tend to be healthier than
their counterparts in factory farms. That means farmers using hoop
barns do not need to rely on antibiotics to prevent disease and promote
growth, a common practice on factory farms that is contributing to the
development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria that threaten
public health. Products from hoop producers are being sought out by
meat suppliers and restaurants based on the enhanced flavor and texture
characteristics of the meat. In addition, hoop barns are better for the
environment, because they use solid manure composting rather than the
liquid waste disposal systems used by factory farms, which jeopardize
groundwater and produce noxious odors. Furthermore, they offer an
affordable alternative for farmers. Hoop barns are approximately one-
third the cost of conventional factory farm structures. They are easy
to install and versatile (they can be used for different species or for
storage of hay or equipment). This flexibility helps family farmers
withstand fluctuations in market demand and avoid corporate buyouts.
We appreciate the Committee's support in fiscal year 2003 for this
promising technology. As a result of the Committee's action, Iowa's
Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture--which is in the forefront
of research and development on hoop barns--is expanding understanding
and adoption of hooped structures as low-cost, humane, environmentally-
friendly production housing systems for swine and other agricultural
animals. The hoop research is promoting viable and timely production
options for struggling small and medium sized farmers as well as
helping to open new markets. We request your support for $325,000 in
fiscal year 2004 for this ongoing project to make the benefits of hoop
barns available on a wider scale.

HUMANE FARMING COMMISSION STUDY

According to USDA, there are 9 billion animals slaughtered for food
in the United States each year. Yet, other than the HMSA requiring that
livestock be rendered unconscious before they are killed, there are no
Federal laws regarding humane treatment of farm animals. The AWA does
not cover livestock or poultry. At the State level, there is only one
relevant law; Florida voters in 2002 banned the use of gestation crates
for breeding sows. State anti-cruelty statutes either exempt farm
animals or they are not traditionally applied to deal with routine or
customary agricultural practices. Farm animal treatment is left almost
entirely to industry norms and producer conscience.
Most Americans would be surprised to learn that the government has
nothing to say about practices such as intensive confinement that is so
cramped the animals cannot turn around, deliberate starvation to force
molting, and cutting off pigs' tails and chickens' beaks without any
anesthesia in order to prevent them from attacking each other in these
crowded and highly stressful conditions. In the absence of government
regulation, such inhumane practices have become the norm for industrial
agriculture in this country.
Responding to public concern, some major companies that purchase
large quantities of animal products--such as McDonald's, Burger King,
and Wendy's--have begun requiring their suppliers to abandon certain
inhumane practices. While welcome, these voluntary efforts by major
restaurant chains are not sufficient. The need for humane treatment of
farm animals warrants a consistent approach that will not put any
individual company at a competitive disadvantage, nor will it force
farmers to deal with piecemeal rules. It is time to explore Federal
standards that can be accountable and enforceable.
We recommend that a national commission be charged with examining
the treatment of animals in commercial farming and making
recommendations to Congress. Such a commission should include those
with a range of perspectives, including scientists specializing in
animal welfare, farmers (including sustainable agriculture
practioners), religious leaders and ethicists, economists, and consumer
representatives. We look forward to working with the Committee to
develop this idea further.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to share our views and
priorities for the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of fiscal year
2004. We appreciate the Committee's past support, and hope you will be
able to accommodate these modest requests to address some very pressing
problems affecting millions of animals in the United States. Thank you
for your consideration.
______

Prepared Statement of the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies

USDA/APHIS--VETERINARY SERVICES

Brucellosis
The Association is concerned about the $1.4 Million reduction in
the amount being requested for the Brucellosis Program in the fiscal
year 2004 budget. While we understand some of this may be offset by the
increase in the request for the Animal Health Monitoring and
Surveillance Program budget--in essence the core infrastructure of
APHIS-Veterinary Services--it will be problematic if the entire
requested amount is not acted on favorably by Congress. The Association
supports the $93.96 Million being requested for the Animal Health
Monitoring and Surveillance Program.
The Association also supports the request from the states of
Montana, Idaho and Wyoming for $600,000 in the fiscal year 2004 USDA/
APHIS/Veterinary Services, Program Diseases, Brucellosis Program
budget, to enable those states to continue their participation in the
Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee (GYIBC). Like
amounts ($600,000) have been included as Congressional add-ons in both
fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003. The GYIBC is working to
coordinate federal, state and private actions involved in eliminating
brucellosis from wildlife in the Greater Yellowstone Area and
preventing transmission of brucellosis from wildlife to cattle. Given
the priority for eradicating this disease, it would seem prudent that
Veterinary Services include this amount in its base Brucellosis Program
budget, rather than the States having to rely on Congressional add-ons
to obtain relief. The Association recommends this amount ($600,000) be
identified in the base budget for the Brucellosis Program beginning in
fiscal year 2004 and beyond, until such time as eradication of the
disease has been achieved.

Chronic Wasting Disease
The Association commends APHIS-Veterinary Services for taking
actions to destroy and dispose of captive cervids exposed to chronic
wasting disease (CWD) because these animals represent a tremendous risk
to this country's wildlife resources. The Association supports the $15
million request for funding to eliminate CWD from captive cervids and
strongly encourages Veterinary Services to use a significant part of
the funding to assist State wildlife management agencies with
surveillance for CWD in free-ranging cervids, and to provide funding
for research directed toward better diagnostic testing and increased
knowledge of the epidemiology and epizootiology of CWD. However, this
$15 Million is inadequate to effectively address management of this
disease, and the Association urges an additional $10 Million be
appropriated to CWD, with a total of $20 Million made available to the
states for surveillance and management of free ranging deer and elk.
The Association supports this role for Veterinary Services in the
context that Veterinary Services and other USDA agencies remain mindful
and respectful of state management authority over resident wildlife
species. This will require constant coordination and cooperation with
the State fish and wildlife agencies as this certification and control
program is launched.

Import/Export
Exotic ticks may carry disease agents that could potentially
devastate wildlife populations and therefore, prevention of their
importation is essential. The Association supports the requested
increase for a total of $12.4 Million in fiscal year 2004 funding in
the Import/Export Program for inspection of imported reptiles and
amphibians for exotic ticks, and further recommends that Veterinary
Services work closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
addressing this issue.

Tuberculosis
The Association supports the requested increase for a total of
$15.1 Million in the fiscal year 2004 funding request in the
Tuberculosis Program for the control of bovine tuberculosis, a
continuation of an accelerated program begun in fiscal year 2001 to
address inadequate national surveillance as it relates to international
trade needs and enhanced tuberculosis testing, training and Mexican
eradication efforts, with a goal of total eradication in domestic
livestock by January, 2004. The Association recommends that APHIS-
Veterinary Services work closely with, and provide financial support
to, State fish and wildlife agencies involved in this activity. Funding
should be provided to State fish and wildlife management agencies for
TB surveillance, research, and control operations, and must be
accompanied by close coordination and respect for State management
authority over resident wildlife.

Veterinary Diagnostics
The Association recognizes that wildlife disease investigations
often are dependent upon the USDA's animal disease resources for test
reagents, consultations, and sample referrals, and commends APHIS for
assistance with testing of free-ranging wildlife for diseases such as
brucellosis, chronic wasting disease and bovine tuberculosis. The
Association supports the requested budget of $21 Million in fiscal year
2004 funding for increasing diagnostic capabilities at the Plum Island
Animal Disease Diagnostics Laboratory in New York and at the National
Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames, Iowa.

USDA--APHIS WILDLIFE SERVICES

Wildlife Services (WS), a unit of APHIS, is the Federal agency
responsible for developing new methods for and managing wildlife damage
to agriculture, aquaculture, forest, range, and other natural
resources; for protecting public health and safety through cooperating
with the State fish and wildlife agencies on the control of wildlife-
borne diseases; and for managing wildlife hazards at airports. WS bases
its activities on the principles of wildlife management and integrated
damage management, and carries them out cooperatively with State fish
and wildlife agencies. WS shares most of its operational costs with
State and county governments, agricultural producers, and other
cooperators.
The cooperation and support of the agricultural community is
essential to maintain wildlife populations because much of the nation's
wildlife exists on private agricultural lands. A progressive wildlife
damage management program that reduces the adverse impacts of wildlife
is necessary to maintain the support of the agrarian community and to
counter increasing pressures for indemnity due to wildlife damage.
The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has
worked closely with WS on numerous issues critical to the State fish
and wildlife agencies, including those related to migratory birds,
threatened, and endangered species. The Association commends the WS
program for its professionalism and continuing effort to be attuned to
the changing public values for the nation's wildlife, while remaining
responsive to human/wildlife conflicts and emerging wildlife problems.
A recent report by the General Accounting Office documented that
wildlife damage throughout the United States is significant and
increasing because of high wildlife populations. The Association is
concerned that the Administration's proposal will decrease overall
funding for WS activities. The President's fiscal year 2004 proposed
budget for Methods Development is $13,647,000, a $1,228,000 decrease
from the fiscal year 2003 level. For WS Operations, the proposed budget
is $65,706,000, a $2,881,000 decrease from the fiscal year 2003 level.
For Aquaculture, the proposed budget is $968,000, a decrease of
$420,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level.
With decreased funding for WS Methods Development, further
advancements with nonlethal methods development will not occur at an
acceptable level. Work to develop control methodology for cormorant and
white pelican damage to catfish production in the mid-South will
suffer. In addition, many of the current damage management tools such
as traps, snares, and toxicants are becoming less acceptable to the
public and many States are prohibiting their use because of public
referendums. The only source of new methods is through research. We
commend Congress for recognizing the need to increase funds to support
maintenance and operations of the National Wildlife Research Center in
Ft. Collins, Colorado, and seek further support to provide an
additional $5,000,000 to the Methods Development line item to
adequately fund nonlethal methods research, technology transfer in
areas such as alternative predation management systems including
immunocontraception, repellent and habitat management for birds, and
information outreach for the public.
With decreased funding for WS Operations, there will not be
adequate funding to manage the threat that wildlife poses for
transmitting various diseases to domestic livestock and people; the
oral rabies vaccination program will not progress at an acceptable
level; and efforts to develop a hazardous material accountability
system as part of the WS Management Information System (MIS) and an
emergency response system for-intentionally introduced wildlife
diseases will curtail or cease altogether. WS continue to pass off
shortfalls in funding to their cooperators--especially State and local
cooperators which are not in a position to increase their cost-share in
light of the financial shortfalls they currently face. The Association
recommends that Congress provide an additional $4,250,000 to continue
critical wildlife disease monitoring and surveillance activities, and
also provide an additional $5,700,000 to continue the oral rabies
vaccination program to stop the spread of rabies in coyotes, foxes,
raccoons, and other wildlife.
The Association is pleased that Congress provided $1,200,000 in
fiscal year 2003 to address increasing wolf conflicts in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, and New Mexico, and recommends continued
support to provide adequate funding to manage increasing wolf
populations across the county. The Association also supports the
continuing request in the President's budget for Montana, Idaho and
Wyoming.
WS must continue implementation of their new Management Information
Reporting System (MIS) to standardize reporting systems to provide
specific information on resources protected, damage levels, trend
information, and data on measurements and performance outcomes, and to
comply with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. Most
importantly, the MIS will allow WS to document wildlife disease
monitoring and surveillance efforts and implement an integrated
hazardous material accountability system. The Association recommends
that Congress make $5,000,000 available in fiscal year 2004 ($4 million
more than the President's request) to allow WS to continue
implementation of the new MIS. The implementation will occur over a
five-year period at a total cost of $8-10 million.
The Association is pleased that Congress provided a $600,000
increase in the fiscal year 2003 budget to expand the Berryman
Institute for Wildlife Damage Management at Utah State University and
Mississippi State University. The Association recommends that Congress
continues to support the Berryman Institute by maintaining adequate
funding levels in the future.

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE (CSREES)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

The Association recognizes that the research and educational
programs of the CSREES and its Land Grant partners effect relevant,
positive changes in attitudes and implementation of new technologies by
private landowners, communities, decision-makers, and the public. This
results in significant benefits to the Nation through development of a
productive natural resource base in concert with agriculture. Since
over two-thirds of our land is privately owned, it is appropriate that
the CSREES-Land Grant System, with its grass roots credibility and
delivery system, be adequately funded to transfer knowledge that helps
all private landowners move towards sustainability. However, in the
fiscal year 2003 budget proposal, we see little emphasis on natural
resources research and education directed toward these clientele. In
fact, the total number of farmers based on recent statistics is just
slightly over one million--only one-tenth of all private landowners--
and, the majority of CSREES' budget is directed toward production
agriculture on these lands. Conversely, only $4.093 million is budgeted
(out of a total of $1.015 billion) for the Renewable Resources
Extension Act (RREA) which assists the over ten million private
landowners who own and manage most of the nation's natural resources.
The Association notes that this is the same amount appropriated for
fiscal year 2003 with no increase in light of the vast workload. The
Association is still seriously concerned that the amount ($4.093
million) is so small as to be ineffective and we encourage
Congressional consideration increasing the funding for RREA to better
reflect the need to reach a higher percentage of all landowners.
The Association strongly recommends that the Renewable Resources
Extension Act be funded at $30 million in fiscal year 2004. The RREA
funds, which are apportioned to State Extension Services, effectively
leverage cooperative partnerships at an average of four to one, with a
focus on development and dissemination of information needed by private
landowners (in rural and urban settings). The increase to $30 million
would enable the Extension System to accomplish the goals and
objectives outlined in the 1991-1995 Report to Congress. The need for
RREA educational programs is greater than ever today because of
fragmentation of ownerships, urbanization, the diversity of landowners
needing assistance, and increasing societal concerns about land use and
its effect on soil, water, wildlife and other environmental factors. It
is important to note that RREA has been reauthorized through 2002 and
was originally authorized at $15 million annually; however, even though
it has been proven to be effective in leveraging cooperative state and
local funding, it has never been fully funded. The Association notes
with appreciation that RREA was reauthorized in the 2002 Farm Bill and
the authorized funding raised to $30 million. The increase to $30
million in authorized funding is an empty-handed gesture unless
followed by a corresponding increase in appropriations. An increase to
$30 million would be a good-faith move in the right direction and
enable the Extension Service to expand capability to assist more
private landowners to improve management of additional land while
increasing farm revenue.
The Association strongly encourages that McIntire-Stennis Forestry
Research funds be increased from the $21.884 million in the fiscal year
2003 budget to a level of $25 million. These funds are essential to the
future of resource management on non-industrial private forestlands.
The rapid reduction in timber harvests from public lands bring expanded
opportunities for small private forest owners to play an increasingly
important role in the Nation's timber supply. In some places, these
added opportunities are creating pressures and situations where timber
harvest on private ownerships exceeds timber growth.
The Association notes a level funding of $12.97 million in the
budget for Water Quality Integrated Activities but believes that this
amount is insufficient considering the growing public concern over
water quality, particularly on agricultural landscapes and therefore
the Association recommends the appropriation be increased to $20
million. We are concerned that there is no line item budget for water
quality specific to educational programs under Smith-Lever in Extension
activities. The Association recommends a minimum of $3.5 million in
Extension programs to focus on water quality education targeted at
agricultural producers and other private landowners and managers. We
believe that such program efforts are urgently needed to help these
landowners learn how to address water quality degradation, which
seriously affects drinking water, human health and fish and wildlife
habitat. The Clean Water Act, TMDL's, Gulf of Mexico hypoxia and
expanded animal feeding operation (AFOs) are just a few of the water
quality issues that need to be addressed through Cooperative Extension
efforts.
The Association notes the $2.5 million included in Special Research
Grants to fund Global Change/UV-B monitoring as well as that one of the
three emphasis areas in Natural Resources and Environment is Global
Change. This emphasis area and funding is appropriate in view of
growing concern about the effect of the introduction of greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere, addition of an Energy Title in the 2002 Farm
Bill as well as recently initiated efforts to develop national policy
regarding greenhouse gas emissions reporting. However, efforts to
reduce or mitigate greenhouse gas emissions through carbon
sequestration or other means shouldn't result in degradation of natural
resources, including fish and wildlife, for which the public would have
to pay separately and additionally to correct. The Association supports
research funding to help define and/or address global climate change in
ways that are compatible with conservation of all natural resources,
including fish and wildlife.
The Association notes with concern a reduction in National Research
Initiative Competitive Grants funding from $240 million to $200
million. It is important to note the great needs for creative and
competitive grant programs to provide valuable new information to
broaden approaches to land management, especially with integrated
timber and wildlife management on private lands. There are few truly
competitive programs in wildlife science and USDA NRI has a great
opportunity to make a unique contribution with this type of program.
This program will fund creative and new ideas in ways that ``formula''
funding cannot. The Association supports funding at the fiscal year
2003 level of $240 million.

FARM SERVICE AGENCY (FSA)

An adequately funded budget for the FSA is essential to implement
conservation related programs and provisions under FSA administration
and/or in cooperation with the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) as a result of passage of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002. The Association strongly advocates that the budget include
sufficient personnel funding to service a very active program and
strongly believes that the past erosion of staffing levels has been
inconsistent with the demonstrated need of agricultural producers. The
Association is deeply concerned that the reduced level of staffing
(16,701 FTE) proposed by the Administration is far too low to
adequately address the need.
FSA programs have tremendous quantifiable impacts on natural
resources, and yield substantial public as well as private benefits.
Building on the provisions of present and past Farm Bills and as each
program accomplishes the broadest possible range of natural resource
objectives, the Association encourages close cooperation between FSA,
NRCS and the State Technical Committees in implementing the 2002 Farm
Bill.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)--The continued administration of
CRP is a very significant and valuable commitment of USDA and the FSA.
The Association applauds FSA efforts to fund and extend CRP contracts
for the multiple benefits that accrue to the public as well as the
landowner. The Association provides special thanks to FSA for the
continuous CRP sign-up of high value environmental practices and
encourages additional program options (such as wildlife field borders)
and/or incentives to ensure that enrolled acres deliver soil, water,
wildlife and other natural resource benefits through the use of more
wildlife friendly cover as the CRP general sign-up has delivered.
The commitment of FSA to provide high wildlife benefits in CRP
contracts has been obvious since the advent of the Environmental
Benefits Index (EBI) in the 15th sign-up. The Association applauds FSA
in those efforts with their special emphasis on native grasses,
endangered species and enlightened pine planting and management and
urge that strong emphasis on the establishment and management of
wildlife friendly cover be continued and where possible strengthened.
Recurring management is essential to ensure continuation of soil, water
and wildlife benefits throughout the life of the CRP contract. The
``up-to-$5/acre'' maintenance payment presently included in CRP
contracts tends to be viewed by many landowners as additional rental
payment, whether any maintenance or management is applied or not.
Therefore, it makes sense that needed recurring management (for
wildlife purposes) or maintenance measures (to control noxious weeds,
etc.) be secured when necessary and landowners compensated only when
actual management/maintenance is applied. The Association encourages
FSA to develop necessary programmatic mechanisms as well as
reimbursement to CRP participants for the added cost, to ensure that
recurring management be performed when needed to manage succession in
order to continue wildlife benefits throughout the contract period.

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)

The Natural Resources Conservation Service has immense
responsibilities for implementing the conservation provisions of the
1985 Food Security Act (FSA), the 1990 Food, Agriculture, Conservation
and Trade (FACT) Act, the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform
(FAIR) Act of 1996 and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002.
The 2002 Farm Bill signed into law by the President May 13, 2002
represents the single largest investment in conservation ever
authorized in a Farm Bill and includes reauthorized and new programs to
help the Nation's agricultural producers achieve conservation of
natural resources in concert with production of food and fiber.
Specifically, programs were reauthorized as follows: The Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP)--39.2 million enrollment cap; the Wetland Reserve
Program (WRP)--enrollment cap of 2.275 million acres (up to 250,000
acres new enrollment per year); the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
(WHIP)--at $360 million through 2007 ($60 million in fiscal year 2004);
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)--at $5.8 billion
through 2007 ($1 billion in fiscal year 2004); and, the Farmland
Protection Program (FPP)--at $597 million through 2007 ($125 million in
fiscal year 2004). In addition, the following programs were created:
The Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) with a 2 million acre cap; the
Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP) with $100 million through 2007;
and, the Conservation Security Program (CSP) at $2 billion based on the
10 year score of the 2002 Farm Bill. The Association strongly
encourages Congress to provide annual funding for these conservation
programs at the full levels authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill.
With approximately 50 percent of the land in the United States in
agricultural production, conservation is inextricably linked with
agriculture and, therefore, the importance of USDA conservation
programs cannot be overemphasized. These programs are particularly
important in that many species of wildlife reside on agricultural
landscapes with nowhere else to go and must survive there if they are
to survive at all.
Collectively, the 2002 Farm Bill effectively expands conservation
opportunities provided in the 1985, 1990 and 1996 Farm Bills. Servicing
landowner requests for these programs will require technical assistance
well beyond levels provided by NRCS in times past. Whether technical
assistance is provided by NRCS staff or non-federal technical service
providers, it will take adequate funding to get the job done. The
Association supports the use of an equitable portion of authorized
funding from those programs that have enrollment authorizations
expressed in dollars.
However, in the NRCS fiscal year 2004 Budget Request, it appears
the funding request for some programs (CCC mandatory funding) have been
reduced in widely varying and inequitable amounts in order to create
the Farm Bill Technical Assistance account on the discretionary funding
side. For example, the EQIP budget request for fiscal year 2004 is
shown as $850 million when the authorized fiscal year 2004 level is $1
billion. The difference is $150 million, or 15 percent of EQIP funding,
which is proposed to transfer to help fund the Farm Bill Technical
Assistance Account. Similarly, the fiscal year 2004 budget request for
WHIP is shown as $42 million when the authorized fiscal year 2004
funding level is $60 million. The difference is $18 million, or 30
percent of WHIP funding, which is proposed for transfer to the Farm
Bill Technical Assistance Account. The Association is strongly
concerned about this inequity, particularly since WHIP funding is more
limited than most other Farm Bill conservation programs and the
historic percentage of WHIP funds used for technical assistance has
been much less than 30 percent.
Further, the fiscal year 2004 funding request for WRP is 200,000
acres although Congress authorized a 250,000 acre per year enrollment.
Presumably, although it isn't clear in the budget request, the 50,000
acre difference (between authorized and requested enrollment authority)
reflects the cost of WRP technical assistance. If so, this appears
inequitable and illogical. First, the 20 percent reduction reflects
transfer to the Farm Bill Technical Assistance Account compared with a
15 percent transfer of EQIP funding. Second, and much more importantly,
the WRP enrollment authority is expressed in acres (like CRP) rather
than dollars as is the case with EQIP, WHIP and many of the other Farm
Bill conservation programs. The Association believes that this is
contrary to the intent of the Farm Bill, so recently passed by Congress
and signed into law by the President. The NRCS budget should reflect
the full authorized 250,000 acres for WRP and NRCS should request
technical assistance funding request based on that enrollment level.
This is particularly important in that WRP is one of the most popular
of Farm Bill conservation programs and demand has consistently exceeded
enrollment authority. In fact the NRCS fiscal year 2004 budget request
confirms this with the statement that ``even with the authority to
enroll 250,000 acres in the program, demand for the program exceeded
the annual acreage allocation.''
The Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) presents great opportunity to
provide agricultural producers with an economic alternative to
conversion of dwindling native prairie to other uses. GRP should enable
producers to keep irreplaceable prairie in forage production, a use to
which these lands have historically been so well suited. The
Association supports the $85 million in the fiscal year 2004 budget
request to fund GRP and encourages NRCS to put development of the Rule
for this promising program on the fast track so that the program can be
effectively implemented as early in fiscal year 2004 as possible.
In these times of compelling conservation need, many State fish and
wildlife agencies are contributing staff time to help NRCS field
offices service fish and wildlife aspects of USDA assistance to
landowners. Such partnerships help NRCS deliver specialized technical
expertise to private landowners at less cost than adding NRCS staff
with such expertise. The 2002 Farm Bill contains third party vendor
aspects to allow USDA to contract with State fish and wildlife agencies
to provide fish and wildlife expertise more inexpensively and
effectively than could be provided by adding NRCS staff to fill the
discipline need. And, importantly, State fish and wildlife agencies
have state-level authority for fish and wildlife resources of the state
and are, therefore, in an excellent position to help service related
aspects of Farm Bill programs. The Association strongly encourages the
Administration and Congress to emphasize partnering arrangements
between NRCS and State fish and wildlife agencies and others that
result in cost-efficiencies. The Association also encourages the
Administration to develop a third party vendor certification system
that fully recognizes the technical expertise and management authority
under state law of State fish and wildlife agencies.
______

Prepared Statement of the InterTribal Bison Cooperative

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

My name is Ervin Carlson, a Tribal Council member of the Blackfeet
Tribe of Montana and President of the InterTribal Bison Cooperative.
Please accept my sincere appreciation for this opportunity to submit
testimony to the honorable members of the Department of Agriculture
Appropriations Sub-Committee. The InterTribal Bison Cooperative (ITBC)
is a Native American non-profit organization, headquartered in Rapid
City, South Dakota, comprised of 51 Federally recognized Indian Tribes
located within 17 States across the United States.
Buffalo thrived in abundance on the plains of the United States for
many centuries before they were hunted to near extinction in the 1800s.
During this period of history, buffalo were critical to survival of the
American Indian. Buffalo provided food, shelter, clothing and essential
tools for Indian people and insured continuance of their subsistence
way of life. Naturally, Indian people developed a strong spiritual and
cultural respect for buffalo that has not diminished with the passage
of time.
Numerous tribes that were committed to preserving the sacred
relationship between Indian people and buffalo established the ITBC as
an effort to restore buffalo to Indian lands. ITBC focused upon raising
buffalo on Indian Reservation lands that did not sustain other economic
or agricultural projects. Significant portions of Indian Reservations
consist of poor quality lands for farming or raising livestock.
However, these wholly unproductive Reservation lands were and still are
suitable for buffalo. ITBC began actively restoring buffalo to Indian
lands after receiving funding in 1992 as an initiative of the Bush
Administration.
Upon the successful restoration of buffalo to Indian lands,
opportunities arose for Tribes to utilize buffalo for tribal economic
development efforts. ITBC is now focused on efforts to assure that
tribal buffalo projects are economically sustainable. Federal
appropriations have allowed ITBC to successfully restore buffalo the
tribal lands, thereby preserving the sacred relationship between Indian
people and buffalo. The respect that Indian tribes have maintained for
buffalo has fostered a serious commitment by ITBC member Tribes for
successful buffalo herd development. The successful promotion of
buffalo as a healthy food source will allow Tribes to utilize a
culturally relevant resource as a means to achieve self-sufficiency.

Amended Language Request to Food Stamp Act
The InterTribal Bison Cooperative respectfully requests an
amendment to the Department of Agriculture's Food Stamp Act to increase
the earmark for purchase of buffalo from the current fiscal year 2003
amount of $3,000,000 to $10,000,000. Specifically, ITBC requests the
following amended language to the Food Stamp Act:
For necessary expenses to carry out the Food Stamp Act (7 U.S.C.
2011 et seq.), $26,289.692,000, of which $2,000,000,000 shall be placed
in reserve for use only in such amounts and at such times as may become
necessary to carry out program operations: Provided, That of the funds
made available under this heading and not already appropriated to the
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) established
under section 4(b) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2013 (b)),
not to exceed $10,000,000 shall be used to purchase bison and/or bison
meat for the FDPIR and other food programs on the reservations, with
one-half purchased from Native American bison producers and one half
purchased from producer owned cooperatives or bison ranchers. Provided
further, That all bison purchased shall be labeled according to origin
and the quality of cuts in each package. Provided further, That the
Secretary of Agriculture shall make every effort to enter into a
service contract, with an American Indian Tribe, Tribal company, or an
Inter Tribal organization, for the processing of the buffalo meat to be
acquired from Native American producers. Provided further, That funds
provided herein shall be expended in accordance with section 16 of the
Food Stamp Act; Provided further, That this appropriation shall be
subject to any work registration or workfare requirements as may be
required by law: Provided further, That funds made available for
Employment and Training under this heading shall remain available until
expended, as authorized by section 16(h)(1) of the Food Stamp Act.

Preventative Health Care Initiative
The Native American Indian population currently suffers from the
highest rates of Type 2 diabetes. The Indian population further suffers
from high rates of cardio vascular disease and various other diet
related diseases. Studies indicate that Type 2 diabetes commonly
emerges when a population undergoes radical diet changes. Native
Americans have been forced to abandon traditional diets rich in wild
game, buffalo and plants and now have diets similar in composition to
average American diets. More studies are needed on the traditional
diets of Native Americans versus their modern day diets in relation to
diabetes rates. However, based upon the current data available, it is
safe to assume that disease rates of Native Americans are directly
impacted by a genetic inability to effectively metabolize modern foods.
More specifically, it is well accepted that the changing diet of
Indians is a major factor in the diabetes epidemic in Indian Country.
Approximately 65-70 percent of Indians living on Indian
Reservations receive foods provided by the USDA Food Distribution
Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) or from the USDA Food Stamp
Program. The FDPIR food package is composed of approximately 58 percent
carbohydrates, 14 percent proteins and 28 percent fats. Indians
utilizing Food Stamps generally select a grain based diet and poorer
quality protein sources such as high fat meats based upon economic
reasons and the unavailability of higher quality protein sources.
Buffalo meat is low in fat and cholesterol and is compatible to the
genetics of Indian people. ITBC intends to promote buffalo meat on
Indian Reservations as a healthy source of protein. First, ITBC is
developing a preventative health care initiative to educate Indian
families of the health benefits of buffalo meat. ITBC believes that
incorporating buffalo meat into the FDPIR program will provide a
significant positive impact on the diets of Indian people living on
Indian Reservations. Further, ITBC is exploring methods to make small
quantities of buffalo meat available for purchase in Reservation
grocery stores. A healthy diet for Indian people that results in a
lower incidence of diabetes will reduce Indian Reservation health care
costs and result in a savings for taxpayers.

ITBC Goals and Initiatives
In addition to developing a preventative health care initiative,
ITBC intends to continue with its buffalo restoration efforts and its
Tribal buffalo marketing initiative.
In 1991, seven Indian Tribes had small buffalo herds, with a
combined total of 1,500 animals. The herds were not utilized for
economic development but were often maintained as wildlife only. During
ITBC's relatively short 10-year tenure, it has been highly successful
at developing existing buffalo herds and restoring buffalo to Indian
lands that had no buffalo prior to 1991. Today, through the efforts of
ITBC, over 35 Indian Tribes are engaged in raising over 15,000 buffalo.
All buffalo operations are owned and managed by Tribes and many
programs are close to achieving self-sufficiency and profit generation.
ITBC's technical assistance is critical to ensure that the current
Tribal buffalo projects gain self-sufficiency and become profit-
generating. Further, ITBC's assistance is critical to those Tribes
seeking to start a buffalo restoration effort.
Through the efforts of ITBC, a new industry has developed on Indian
reservations utilizing a culturally relevant resource. Hundreds of new
jobs directly and indirectly revolving around the buffalo industry have
been created. Tribal economies have benefited from the thousands of
dollars generated and circulated on Indian Reservations.
ITBC has also been strategizing to overcome marketing obstacles for
Tribally raised buffalo. ITBC is presently assisting the Assiniboine
and Gros Ventre Tribes of the Fort Belknap Reservation, who recently
purchased an USDA approved meat-processing plant, with a coordination
scheme to accommodate the processing of range-fed Tribally raised
buffalo.

Conclusion
ITBC has proven highly successful since its establishment to
restore buffalo to Indian Reservation lands to revive and protect the
sacred relationship between buffalo and Indian Tribes. Further, ITBC
has successfully promoted the utilization of a culturally significant
resource for viable economic development.
ITBC has assisted Tribes with the creation of new jobs, on-the-job
training and job growth in the buffalo industry resulting in the
generation of new money for Tribal economies. ITBC is also actively
developing strategies for marketing Tribally owned buffalo. Finally,
and most critically for Tribal populations, ITBC is developing a
preventive health care initiative to utilize buffalo meat as a healthy
addition to Tribal family diets.
ITBC strongly urges you to support its request for the amended
language as specifically provided above to the Food Stamp Act to allow
$10,000,000 for the purchase of buffalo and buffalo meat and for half
that amount to be specifically designated for the purchase of Native
American produced buffalo and buffalo meat.
______

Prepared Statement of the Lummi Indian Business Council

My name is Darrell Hillaire, Chairman of the Lummi Nation. The
Lummi Nation is located on the northern coastline of Washington State,
and is the third largest tribe in Washington State serving a population
of over 5,200. On behalf of the Lummi Nation I want to thank you and
the members of the Committee for accepting this written testimony and
allowing the Lummi Nation the opportunity to express our concerns and
requests regarding the fiscal year 2004 Budget for Rural Development
Programs within the Department of Agriculture.

$1 Million from the Rural Business Development Program
The fisheries disasters beginning in 1999, continuing in 2000 and
re-occurring in 2001 has literally bankrupted all of the small business
owners of the Lummi Nation. This economic disaster has impacted over
700 fishers and 2,000 members of the Lummi Nation. This number
represents nearly 50 percent of the total Lummi Nation population. The
decline in the fisheries resource has subsequently been validated and
declared by the Department of Commerce and Related Agencies as an,
economic disaster' under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In order to re-
establish the private business sector of the Lummi Nation, the economy
needs the assistance identified below on an emergency basis:

Retail Facilities
The Lummi Nation needs financial assistance to support the
development of retail facilities on the Lummi Reservation. Retail
facilities will support business development on the reservation and
will employ both Tribal and non-Tribal residents. The Lummi Nation has
provided some of its unemployed fishers with business development
training. We were able to secure funding to provide adult and
vocational training to our members at the Northwest Indian Community
College and they have prepared 50 business plans in varying stages of
readiness for financing.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Period 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Amount................................ $500,000 $2,000,000 $140,000
Project Activity.............................. Planning Construction Operations Implementation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commercial Processing Facilities
The Lummi Nation needs financial assistance to support the
development of commercial facilities on the Reservation to support
finfish and shellfish processing from harvesters into retail products
and to transport these products to markets within the contracted
timeframes. The Lummi Nation will seek to contract with an established
seafood processing companies to consult with during the design and
construction phase, as well as operate the facility profitably under a
lease agreement.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Period 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Amount................................ $500,000. $5,000,000. $300,000.
Project Activity.............................. Planning Construction Operations Support
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

$500,000 from the USDA Indian Water Program
The Lummi Nation is seeking funding to support the cost of
construction for the expansion of the Tribal infrastructure, which
includes water and wastewater treatment systems for community
development purposes. The Tribe has already begun planning and design
efforts for a ``Kwina Village'' concept, which includes a new Tribal
College campus, a Drug Treatment Center and a new Tribal Government
facility. Funding is needed to upgrade, replace and develop Tribal
infrastructure systems to accommodate Kwina Village development.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Period 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Amount.............................. $2,000,000 $220,000 $180,000
Project Activity............................ Construction Implementation Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for this opportunity and we hope that the Committee will
find the request of the Lummi Nation a viable one.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Association of Conservation
Districts

The National Association of Conservation Districts is the
nonprofit, nongovernment organization that represents the nation's
3,000 conservation districts and more than 16,000 men and women who
serve on their governing boards. Established under state law,
conservation districts are local units of state government charged with
carrying out programs for the protection and management of natural
resources at the local level. They work with nearly two-and-half
million cooperating landowners and operators--many of them farmers and
ranchers--to provide technical and other assistance to help them manage
and protect private land in the United States. In carrying out their
mission to coordinate and carry out all levels of conservation
programs, districts work closely with USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) through its Conservation Technical
Assistance Program (CTAP) to provide the technical and other help
farmers and ranchers need to plan and apply complex conservation
practices, measures and systems.
The partnership of conservation districts, state conservation
agencies and NRCS provides farmers and ranchers with critical help in
protecting and improving the quantity and quality of our soil and water
resources while meeting both domestic and international food and fiber
needs. America's agricultural producers provide many benefits to our
citizens including clean water and air, fish and wildlife habitat and
open space. Many of the conservation practices producers apply on their
land also take carbon out of the atmosphere and store it in the soil,
providing a hedge against global climate change. As stewards of the
nation's working lands, farmers and ranchers manage the vast majority
of America's private lands and provide tremendous environmental
benefits to the country.
On behalf of America's conservation districts, I am pleased to
provide our recommendations on selected conservation programs carried
out through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, especially those of the
Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Conservation Operations--Conservation Technical Assistance Program
The heart of the agency's private lands conservation assistance
delivery system is its Conservation Operations (CO) account. Through
the CO Conservation Technical Assistance Program (CTAP), NRCS provides
direct assistance to private landowners and operators and others to
address myriad natural resource concerns such as soil erosion control,
water and air quality protection and improvement, wetlands and wildlife
habitat conservation, forestry management, grazing land improvement and
other resource concerns. Requests for such assistance grow each year
and far outstrip the ability of the agency to meet the demand. Data
collected over the past several years continue to show a shortfall of
several thousand staff years at the field level. Conservation districts
recommendation for the NRCS Conservation Technical Assistance Program
for fiscal year 2004 is for a total of $731.000 million, an increase of
approximately $35 million, or 5 percent over the fiscal year 2003
level. We believe it is critical that this basic and essential program
be strengthened to help landowners and operators address the nation's
natural resource non-Farm Bill needs on private working lands.
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2004 includes a
proposal to establish a separate Farm Bill Technical Assistance
account, which would be funded by transferring $154 million from the
NRCS CO account, as well as transfers of Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC) funds and other offsets. We have argued consistently since
enactment of the 2002 Farm Bill that Congress intended for the seven
programs authorized in Sec. 1241(a) of Title XII of the Food Security
Act of 1985 to fully fund technical assistance from their CCC accounts.
We have further argued that, since at best the new Farm Bill's working
agricultural lands conservation programs will reach less than 25
percent of the nation's agricultural lands, and an even smaller
percentage of the nation's farms and ranches, the NRCS CO account
should be intended to service basic technical assistance needs of
producers who do not participate in the Farm Bill programs.
Congress rejected a similar Farm Bill Technical Assistance account
proposal in its fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill for USDA and we
urge you to do so again. We strongly support having each of the seven
section 1241(a) programs pay for its own technical assistance,
including CRP and WRP, and that funds for that purpose are not subject
to the CCC section 11 cap. We also urge you to again adopt language in
the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill stating that CO funds cannot
be used to provide technical assistance with respect to programs listed
in section 1241(a).

Conservation Operations--Conservation of Private Grazing Lands
In addition to the base Conservation Technical Assistance Program,
conservation districts support full funding for the NRCS Conservation
of Private Grazing Lands provision, authorized at $60 million annually.
Resource problems such as brush, weeds and accelerated water or wind
erosion threaten the capacity of nearly 300 million acres--more than 50
percent--of these lands to satisfy production needs and meet natural
resource values. Working with partners such as the National Grazing
Lands Conservation Initiative, conservation districts and their
partners have determined that at least $60 million is needed to fund
the CPGL program. This amount represents a $36.5 million, or 5 percent,
increase relative to fiscal year 2003 CTAP spending and will allow us
to begin reversing the negative trends that affect both production and
environmental concerns on these lands.
In addition technical assistance needs, currently more than 45
percent of the nation's rangelands lack an adequate soil survey.
Approximately 80 percent of the same lands need inventory and
classification of their vegetation. Such information is essential to
planning and implementing coordinated resource management programs,
monitoring rangeland status and dealing with resource issues such as
noxious weeds, wildfire and endangered species.
NRCS is currently partnering with the Forest Service and USDI's
Bureau of Land Management to develop a common interagency ecological
framework for rangelands. The framework will provide improved
efficiencies in rangeland inventory, facilitate interagency
coordination, provide an essential base for monitoring, and provide all
parties interested in rangelands a basis for a common understanding of
their needs. Conservation districts urge Congress to direct the
Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to establish an interagency
committee to develop a National Cooperative Rangeland Survey to address
rangeland assessment and monitoring issues, provide adequate funding
for those purposes and encourage the secretaries to cooperatively take
actions necessary to develop and implement a 10-year plan for
completion of a survey/ecological classification and a National
Periodic Rangeland Survey. We recommend that $3 million be provided to
NRCS for its share of the activities described above.
The Conservation Operations account includes other important
components that include snow survey and water forecasting activities;
establishment and operation of plant materials centers; and conducting
the cooperative soil survey program. Specific recommendations for those
activities are: snow survey--$10 million; plant materials center--$15
million; and soil surveys: $91 million.

Watershed Protection
Through its Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention, Watershed
Surveys and Planning, Watershed Rehabilitation Program and Emergency
Watershed Program, NRCS partners with states, local units of
government, tribes and other sponsor organizations to address many
natural resource issues on a watershed basis. More than 2,000 plans,
covering 160 million acres in watersheds across the country, have been
completed or are under development. The purposes of watershed projects
include watershed protection, flood prevention, water quality
improvements, soil erosion reduction, water supply, irrigation water
management, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement and wetland
protection and restoration. Technical and financial assistance are
provided in cooperation with local sponsoring organizations and state
and other sponsoring public agencies to voluntarily plan and install
watershed-based projects on private lands.
In addition to planning new and meeting existing project needs,
many of the more than 10,000 existing structures built over the past 50
years through the cooperative watershed programs are nearing the ends
of their life spans and no longer meet current dam safety or other
standards. These structures now need to be upgraded, repaired or
decommissioned to address watershed needs of today and the future.
NRCS's Emergency Watershed Program provides cost-share and
technical assistance to help landowners and operators and other
cooperators restore damage from floods, storms and other natural
disasters.
The President's requests of $40 million for the Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention Program, $5 million for Watershed
Surveys and Planning, and $10 million for Watershed Rehabilitation fall
far short of the need. NACD and its partner, the National Watershed
Coalition, document an immediate need and ability to effectively
utilize $190 million, $35 million and $45 million, respectively, for
these programs that address important watershed-based public health and
safety issues across the nation and we urge you to make these funds
available.
Conservation districts also urge you to fund the NRCS Emergency
Watershed Program at $110 million in fiscal year 2004 as an important
step toward creating a separate, stand-alone account for helping
landowners and operators respond to flooding and other emergencies.

Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Program
NRCS's Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Program helps
improve the capability of state, tribal and local units of government
and local nonprofit organizations in rural areas to plan, develop and
carry out programs to advance quality of life through natural resources
conservation and community development. The overall goal of the RC&D
Program is to help communities achieve sustainable development through
prudent use, management and conservation of natural resources. The Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill) permanently
authorized the RC&D Program and increased the number of authorized
areas to 450.
RC&D Councils play an important role in rural development and
natural resource conservation. USDA has indicated that it takes
$161,000 to fully support an RC&D council. There are 368 existing
councils and 20 pending applications. Conservation districts recommend
that Congress appropriate $69.2 million to fully support the existing
councils and additional applicant areas up to the authorized limit.

Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP)
Through its Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP), NRCS addresses
health, safety and environmental hazards created by abandoned mine
lands in rural areas, which affect half of the 50 states. Although the
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund (AMRF) is intended to fund these
reclamation activities by providing a portion of the collected fees to
be transferred from the Interior Department to RAMP, the program has
received no funding for the past seven years.
A portion of the funds from the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund is
intended to be transferred to NRCS to help defray the costs associated
with mineland reclamation activities. Although the portion of the fees
collected by the AMRF targeted for RAMP stands at more than $250
million, no funds have been transferred in the past six years.
Conservation districts recommend transferring $25 million from the AMRF
to the NRCS RAMP account in fiscal year 2004.
Additional recommendations for USDA's discretionary-funded private
lands conservation programs are contained in the attached chart.

Mandatory Programs
In 1985, Congress recognized the important role that farmers and
ranchers play in environmental protection when it enacted the first
Farm Bill conservation title that required producers to incorporate
conservation into their operations if they wanted to continue receiving
USDA farm program benefits. The title also included a land retirement
program--the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)--to give farmers
financial incentives to take sensitive lands out of production. In
subsequent Farm Bills and other statutes, lawmakers added more
incentives programs--the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Farmland Protection Program (FPP),
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) and Agricultural Management
Assistance (AMA) Program--to provide additional incentives to increase
conservation.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 enacted sweeping
legislation that extended the above Farm Bill conservation programs,
added several new initiatives, including the Conservation Security
Program (CSP), Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) and Forest Land
Enhancement Program (FLEP). It also dramatically increased funding for
conservation through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) by 80
percent over current levels. In addition to the new and expanded
program initiatives, the six-year bill provided that all of the
``mandatory'' conservation programs would pay for their own technical
assistance needs from within their own CCC program accounts.
As noted earlier, the fiscal year agriculture component of the
fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill clarified this by amending
the Farm Bill to very specifically state this intent. However, the bill
provided that technical assistance funding for the WRP and CRP would
have to come from the CCC accounts of EQIP, FRPP, WHIP, the CSP and
GRP. Conservation districts urge Congress to correct this oversight by
amending the statute to allow WRP and CRP to pay their own technical
assistance costs.
With respect to the CSP, this new program presents an extraordinary
opportunity to increase conservation on private working lands. In
contrast to the other, more targeted programs, all producers and all
working the CSP are eligible to participate. This innovative program
provides varying levels of cost-share and incentive payments to
producers who install and/or maintain conservation practices and
systems with higher levels of conservation qualifying for higher levels
of payments. Conservation districts worked hard to help craft this
program and ensure its passage in the Farm Bill and support the CSP as
an entitlement with no cap on its cost, as written in the 2002 law. The
2003 appropriations law, however, capped the program at $3.7 billion
over a 10-year period, which we believe seriously limits its ability to
achieve much more significant conservation gains during that span. We
strongly urge Congress to lift this restriction and allow the CSP to
realize its true potential.
Other conservation programs addressed in the Farm Bill include
increasing CCC funding for the Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA)
Program, which provides EQIP-type assistance in states traditionally
underserved by Farm Bill programs, and providing additional CCC funding
for the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program.
Conservation districts were strong supporters of the Farm Bill
conservation programs and played a key role in their development and
enactment. They also have significant roles in their implementation,
among other roles, approving conservation plans, identifying local
resource concerns, priorities and objectives, and coordinating
community input into programs. In order to fully attain the public
benefits the American want and expect from these key private lands
conservation programs, we urge you to allow for their full funding in
fiscal year 2004 as detailed in the attached chart.

Conclusion
As you continue your work on providing funding for critical NRCS
programs, we again urge you to keep in mind that NRCS is the only
Federal agency whose primary role is to provide conservation assistance
on the nation's private lands. There are a few other agencies with
narrowly targeted purposes, but no other agency even comes as close to
touching all of America's private working lands as do NRCS and
conservation districts. It is critical, therefore, that we strengthen
the nation's commitment to providing adequate resources to help land
managers conserve and protect natural resources on these lands.
On behalf of the nation's 3,000 conservation districts, we
appreciate the opportunity to provide our views on fiscal year 2004
funding recommendations for select USDA conservation programs. We look
forward to working with you over the next few months in finalizing your
proposals.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Association of Professional Forestry
Schools and Colleges (NAPFSC)

The National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and
Colleges (NAPFSC) is comprised of the 69 universities that conduct the
Nation's research, teaching, and extension programs in forestry and
related areas of environmental and natural resource management. NAPFSC
strongly supports increased funding for Federal forestry research
programs, including those operated by the USDA's Cooperative State
Research Education and Extension Service (CSREES).
The time is right to strengthen the research and technology
transfer capacity for Federal land management agencies. The management
of nonfederal forestlands has become a critical economic,
environmental, and security issue. Owners and managers of nonfederal
forestlands are simply not equipped to deal with the tremendous changes
in forest land use and management that have occurred in the last decade
nor the pressures of the 21st century.
The programs outlined below are key to addressing the stewardship
of these lands. These programs are: the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative
Forestry Research Program (McIntire-Stennis), the Renewable Resources
Extension Act (RREA), and the National Research Initiative (NRI)
Competitive Grants Program. These programs have stimulated the
development of vital partnerships involving universities, Federal
agencies, non-governmental organizations and private industry, and need
to have increased funding for fiscal year 2004.
The Case for Enhanced Forestry Research Funding.--The past,
present, and future success of forestry research and extension
activities arising from the NAPFSC member institutions results from a
unique partnership involving Federal, State, and private cooperators.
Federal agencies have concentrated on large-scale national issues while
state funding has emphasized applied problems and state-specific
opportunities. University research in contrast, with the assistance of
Federal, State and private support, has been able to address a broad
array of applied problems related to technology development and
fundamental biophysical and socioeconomic issues and problems that
cross ownership, state, region, and national boundaries.
The 1998 Farm Bill and various subsequent reports and conference
proceedings have identified the need for greater attention on the
emerging issues confronting non-Federal forest landowners. NAPFSC is
pleased to be one of the cofounders of the National Coalition for
Sustaining America's Nonfederal Forests. The founding of the Coalition
and its subsequent report emerged from a Forestry Summit held in 1999
that brought together key forestry leaders and landowners from across
the nation. The Coalition has documented a plan of action to conserve,
protect, and sustain our nation's nonfederal forest lands. Recent
security threats to the nation's forest and water resources further
heighten the importance of this plan. The plan stresses the importance
of cooperation among the public universities, State forestry agencies,
Federal agencies, and the many stakeholders in the natural resources
arena. Key elements of this plan are research capacity and concerted
action on stakeholder priorities.
The forests and other renewable natural resources of this country
are primary contributors to the economic health of the nation; are
reservoirs of biodiversity important to the well-being of our citizens;
are significant to the maintenance of environmental quality of our
atmosphere, water, and soil resources and provide diverse recreational
and spiritual renewal opportunities for a growing population.
Tremendous strains are being placed upon the nation's private forest
lands by the combination of increasing demands for forest products
coupled with dramatic changes in timber policies concerning our
National Forests. Because of the changes in Federal forest policy,
private forest lands in the United States are now being harvested at
rates not seen since the beginning of the 20th century.
To meet this challenge, research priorities must be adjusted to
better address the needs of private landowners, and to specifically
enhance the productivity of such lands through economically efficient
and environmentally sound means. These challenges can be substantially
addressed by the university community through the building of
integrated research and extension programs assisted by McIntire-
Stennis, RREA, and NRI.
There are currently approximately 10 million private forestland
owners in the United States. These landowners control nearly 60 percent
of all forestland in the country. And it has been to the universities,
with strong support from CSREES, that landowners traditionally look for
new information about managing their lands. The overwhelming majority
of the 10 million private landowners are not currently equipped to
practice the sustained forest management that is critical to the health
of our environment and economy. The combination of research conducted
by the forestry schools, combined with the dissemination of that
research through the cooperative extension network, has never been more
essential.
The Cooperative Forestry Research (McIntire-Stennis) Program is the
lead forestry effort administered by the USDA Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). This program is
the foundation of forest resources research and scientist training
efforts at universities. The program provides cutting-edge research on
productivity, technologies for monitoring and extending the resource
base, and environmental quality--efforts that are critically important
since universities provide a large share of the nation's research.
The Investment.--The program is currently funded at $21,742,000 and
matched more than three times by universities with state and nonfederal
funds. The NAPFSC funding request for fiscal year 2004 is $30 million
with the increase targeted at:
--sustainable and productive forest management systems for private
lands to address issues of global change, international
competition and economic growth ($2.8 million);
--forest health and risk to address fire, pest species, and other
disturbances affecting domestic resource security, downstream
impacts, and restoration of complex systems ($2.1 million);
--assessing social values and tradeoffs to identify realistic policy
options, economic impacts, and to inform decisions with
effective science at all levels of government ($1.1 million);
--forest monitoring and information systems with emphasis on
geospatial technologies and landscape models for aiding the
assessment of policy alternatives ($1.1 million); and
--new biobased products, improved processing technologies, and
utilization of small trees to extend the forest resource and
enhance environmental quality ($1.0 million);
The NAPFSC schools request this support with direction to focus on
new or existing approved projects to achieve rapid progress on one or
more of these research targets in each school's state, region, or
nationally. We recognize that progress will be dependent on a critical
mass of scientific effort, thus collaboration among schools is
encouraged. Portions of this funding will also be used to provide
training for critically needed new forest resources scientists.
Addressing the base program needs will in turn build the capacity to
compete effectively for competitive grants, such as through the
National Research Initiative (NRI).
The Renewable Resources Extension Program (RREA) program in CSREES
is the nation's lead forest resources extension effort--it is the
foundation of outreach and extension efforts at universities. The
program is critically important today since universities provide a
large share of the nations outreach and extension. Also, these same
institutions educate nearly all of the nation's professionals in forest
resources. Audiences for the products of outreach and extension are as
diverse as are the stakeholders. The highest priority is the owners of
nonfederal forestlands and those involved in implementing forest
management.
The Investment.--A wide range of management practices and
techniques are needed to increase the production of multiple outputs
from forests and to enhance domestic resource security. Building toward
this accomplishment will take several years. However, we urge a
significant step this year. The RREA program is currently funded at
$4,516,000. The NAPFSC request for fiscal year 2004 is $15 million. The
most compelling targets for this increase are:
--Best management practices together with readily accessible
information on programs, services, and benefits of natural
resources management and planning to integrate water, wildlife,
timber, fish, recreation and other products and services ($3.5
million);
--Communication systems for landowner education and the delivery of
information tailored to address owner values and objectives
($3.3 million);
--Risk management approaches for addressing fire, pests, and other
disturbances at local to larger scales--issues of environmental
and resource security ($2.1 million).
--Opportunities for cooperation such as landowner cooperatives and
other organizations linked to professional services and
marketing, and conservation strategies to address local issues
within the framework of landowner's objectives ($1.5 million).
The NAPFSC schools request this support with direction to focus on
new or existing approved projects to achieve rapid progress on one or
more of these research targets in each school's state, region, or
nationally. We recognized that progress will be dependent on a critical
mass of extension educator effort, thus collaboration among schools is
encouraged. Portions of this funding will also be used to provide the
training needed in developing new extension educators.
The National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRI)
is a significant source of funding for basic and applied research on
forest resources and their management and utilization. This program is
currently funded at $166,045,000 of which approximately ten percent
goes to successful forestry research proposals. NAPFSC supports the
Administration's efforts to increase the funding for this program to
$200 million for fiscal year 2004 but urges that at least 20 percent of
the increase be directed to forest resources related research.
2002 Farm Bill Funding.--NAPFSC strongly urges Congress to provide
full funding for the various programs authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill,
especially programs such as Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP) and the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP). These programs,
along with programs such as Wetland Reserve Program and the Wildlife
Habitat Improvement Program (WHIP) are instrumental in the development
and implementation of any national investment strategy for forest
resources. It is important that the Department of Agriculture has a
strong infrastructure to deliver these important conservation
provisions. NAPFSC urges the Committee to provide necessary funding to
the Natural Resources Conservation Service. These funds will provide
the resources to insure that the technical expertise will be available
to work with the increasing number of landowners who are addressing a
broad set of resource issues, including forest management as well as
conservation.

Conclusion
The investments outlined here are substantial, but the potential
savings and returns are far greater. Disciplined and rigorous
implementation of research and education on forest resources issues
will contribute greatly to attaining our vision for America's
nonfederal forests for the future. NAPFSC urges cooperation at Federal,
State, and University levels to make this investment and the vision and
security it will support a reality.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Association of University Fisheries
and Wildlife Programs

The National Association of University Fisheries and Wildlife
Programs (NAUFWP) appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony
concerning the fiscal year 2004 budgets for the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Cooperative State Research,
Education and Extension Services (CSREES). NAUFWP represents
approximately 55 university programs and their 440 faculty members,
scientists, and extension specialists and over 9,200 undergraduates and
graduate students working to enhance the science and management of
fisheries and wildlife resources. NAUFWP is interested in strengthening
fisheries and wildlife education, research, extension, and
international programs to benefit wildlife and their habitats on
agricultural and other private land.

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

Farm Bill Technical Assistance.--We applaud Congress for passing
the 2002 Farm Bill that authorizes USDA to work with third party
Technical Service Providers, building a strong cadre of certified
professionals to assist NRCS in delivering assistance to producers.
However, NRCS recognizes that technical service and other training will
be needed to effectively prepare Technical Service Providers to assist
producers and landowners. NAUFWP recommends that the Administration
provide NRCS with adequate funds to make use of universities, colleges,
land grant institutions, and the Extension Service to train Technical
Service Providers.
Monitoring and Evaluation.--Monitoring Farm Bill conservation
programs and evaluating their progress toward achieving Congressionally
established objectives for soil, water, and wildlife will enable NRCS
to ensure successful conservation program implementation. Changes to
agricultural policy in the 2002 Farm Bill, such as higher funding
authorizations and expanded acreage enrollment caps, necessitate an
accountability system that continuously assesses the effectiveness of
conservation programs and policies. NAUFWP recommends dedicating the
$10 million approved in the Farm Bill Statement of Managers for
monitoring to monitoring and evaluation of Farm Bill conservation
programs. We propose using a competitive grants process to fund a
consortium of non-USDA organizations (non-governmental organizations,
universities, and state organizations) for the purpose of identifying
cost-saving practices, program improvements, and future funding
requirements, and determining the environmental and economic value of
conservation expenditures.

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND EXTENSION SERVICES

Renewable Resources Extension Act.--NAUFWP was pleased that
Congress appropriated $423,000 above the Administration's request for
the Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) in 2003. RREA provides an
expanded, comprehensive extension program for forest and rangeland
renewable resources. The need for these programs is greater than ever
now due to fragmentation of ownerships, urbanization, the number and
diversity of landowners needing assistance, and the increasing social
concern for land use and its effect on soil, water, air, and wildlife.
It is important to note that RREA was reauthorized in the 2002 Farm
Bill at $30 million annually through 2007. Though RREA is proven to be
effective at leveraging cooperative state and local funding, it has
never been fully funded in the annual appropriations process. In fact,
the fiscal year 2004 request for RREA falls back to the 2002 funding
level, $4.093 million, which is insufficient for assisting private
landowners who own and manage most of the nation's natural resources.
An increase to at least $15 million would enable CSREES to expand its
capability to assist more private landowners in improving management of
private land while increasing farm revenue. Therefore NAUFWP recommends
that the Renewable Resources Extension Act be funded at a minimum of
$15 million in fiscal year 2004.
McIntire-Stennis.--The McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry
program funds state efforts in forestry research to increase the
efficiency of forestry practices, and to extend the benefits that come
from forest and related rangelands. McIntire-Stennis calls for close
coordination between state colleges and universities and the Federal
Government, and is essential for providing research background for
other Acts, such as RREA. The Administration's fiscal year 2004 request
for McIntire-Stennis is $21.884 million, in essence level with 2002 and
2003. NAUFWP recommends that funding for McIntire-Stennis Cooperative
Forestry be increased to $30 million.
National Research Initiative.--National Research Initiative
Competitive Grants (NRI) are open to academic institutions, Federal
agencies, and private organizations to fund research on improving
agricultural practices, particularly production systems that are
sustainable both environmentally and economically, and to develop
methods for protecting natural resources, including wildlife.
Innovative grant programs such as NRI help broaden approaches to land
management, such as integrating timber and wildlife management on
private lands. NAUFWP supports the Administration's 2004 request of
$200 million for National Research Initiative Competitive Grants, and
requests Congressional approval.
Thank you for considering the views of university fisheries and
wildlife scientists. We look forward to working with you and your staff
to ensure adequate funding for wildlife conservation.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Commodity Supplemental Food Program

Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, I am Leona Martens,
President of the National Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)
Association. Our Association of state and local CSFP operators works
diligently with the Department of Agriculture Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Service to ensure a quality supplemental nutrition assistance
commodity food package program for low income persons aged sixty and
older, and low income mothers, infants, and children. The program,
which was authorized in 1969, serves approximately 476,000 individuals
every month in 32 states, 2 Tribal Organizations and the District of
Columbia.
This 34 year old CSFP stands as testimony to the power of
partnerships between community and faith-based organizations, private
industry and government agencies. The CSFP offers a unique combination
of advantages unparalleled by any other food assistance program:
--The CSFP specifically targets our nation's most vulnerable
populations: the very young and the very old low-income
persons.
--The CSFP provides a monthly selection of food packages specifically
tailored to the nutritional needs of the population we serve.
Each eligible participant in the program is guaranteed [by law]
a certain level of nutritional assistance every month.
--The CSFP purchases foods at wholesale prices, which directly
supports the farming community. The wholesale costs amount to
\1/3\ the cost it would be to provide the same supplemental
nutrients at retail voucher cost. The average food package for
fiscal year 2003 is $13.72, and the retail cost would be
approximately $45.00.
--The CSFP involves the entire community in the problems of hunger
and poverty. Thousands of volunteers as well as many private
companies donate money, equipment, and most importantly time to
deliver food to homebound seniors. These volunteers not only
bring food but companionship and other assistance to seniors
who might have no other source of support.
Chairman Bennett, the committee has consistently been helpful with
funding support for our very prudent way of providing nutritional
supplemental food packages to low income eligible seniors, mothers and
children. Please help us continue.

NATIONAL CSFP NATIONAL CSFP ASSOCIATION 2004 ISSUES AND GOALS

Fiscal year 2004 Caseload and Funding Request--$130 Million
598,674 Caseload Slots--$129,994,469.00.
Caseload Requirements Existing States--559,674 Slots.
Total Cost Per Caseload Slot: $164.64.--($13.72 blended monthly
food package cost 12 months) + $52.08 ($51.48 annual fiscal year 2003
administrative annual funding level 1.16 percent state and local
index of inflation) = $216.72 per slot = $121,292,549.00.
Expansion For Current Participating States: 27,000 Slots.--Current
participating states had requested 6,000 additional slots to serve CSFP
eligible seniors, women and children that were not awarded for fiscal
year 2003. Additional slots will be needed as the eligible population
increases due to the current economic conditions. This would require an
$164.64 ($13.72 blended monthly food package cost 12 months) + $52.08
($51.48 annual fiscal year 2003 administrative annual funding 1.16
percent state and local index of inflation) = $216.72 per slot =
$5,851,440.00
New States: 12,000 Slots.--Arkansas, Maine, Oklahoma and Utah are
submitting State Plans. 3,000 slots for each State would equal an
additional $123.48 ($13.72 blended monthly food package cost
9 months) + $39.06 ($52.08 prorated for 9 months) = $162.54 per slot =
$1,950.480.00.
Estimated USDA Costs for Procuring Commodities--$.9 million.
Restore Senior Income Guidelines to 185 percent of Poverty.--
Current income eligibility for senior clients is set at 130 percent of
the poverty income guidelines, as opposed to 185 percent of poverty for
CSFP women, infants, and children and clients of the WIC Program and
the Seniors Farmers Market Nutrition Program. Many seniors are
struggling with high housing, medical, and utility costs, and at the
130 percent poverty guideline, even the slightest inflation-driven
increase in Social Security income renders many seniors ineligible for
CSFP. The Senior Nutrition Act has been introduced in both the House
and Senate in 2003. Senate bill number is S 468 and House is HR 1021.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony for the record
regarding the fiscal year 2004 funding request for the National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation). The Foundation respectfully
requests that this Subcommittee fund the Foundation at $4 million
through the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
appropriation. This request would allow the Foundation to expand its
highly successful grant program to better assist the NRCS in maximizing
the benefits of the Conservation Title of the 2002 Farm Bill.
Federal dollars appropriated by this Subcommittee allow us to
leverage state, local and private dollars for on-the-ground
conservation. Since our inception in 1984, the Foundation as a whole
has supported over 5,756 grants and leveraged over 230 million Federal
dollars for more than $700 million in on-the-ground conservation
projects. This has resulted in more than 24.6 million acres of restored
and managed wildlife habitat; 15,036 miles of restored streams and
waterways; new hope for countless species under stress; new models of
private land stewardship; and, stronger education programs in schools,
local communities and on our Nation's farms. This Subcommittee's
appropriation of NRCS dollars to the Foundation has helped us reach our
goal.
With funds appropriated to the Foundation in previous 2 fiscal
years, we have been able to yield a return of more than three non-
Federal dollars raised for every taxpayer dollar entrusted to our
organization. None of our Federally appropriated funds are used for
lobbying or litigation, or the Foundation's administrative expenses.
All of our Federally appropriated funds go to one-the-ground projects.
Furthermore, our general administrative expenses, including
fundraising, public relations, and finance and administration averaged
4 percent or less over the past 5 years.
The Foundation's relationship with the NRCS began in 1996 when we
signed a cooperative agreement to protect and restore previously
converted agricultural wetlands through the Wetland Reserve Program
(WRP). Through that partnership the Foundation received $5 million in
NRCS funds, matched it with $5.4 million in non-Federal funds and
awarded a total of 31 WRP grants. More than 10,000 acres were restored
and enrolled in the WRP through this effort. In 1999, due in part to
success of our WRP grant program, this Subcommittee appropriated $3
million in fiscal year 2000 funds to the Foundation to implement a new
general conservation grant program with the NRCS.
This new general conservation grant program allowed us then and
continues to allow the Foundation to be highly successful in assisting
the NRCS in accomplishing its mission to help people conserve, maintain
and improve our natural resources and environment. Whether it involves
farm, range or grassland conservation, species management or
conservation education, the Foundation strategically invests the
Federal funds entrusted to us in sound projects. In fiscal year 2000,
the Foundation was able to match the $3 million in appropriated funds
with $7.5 million in non-Federal funds. In fiscal year 2001, the
Foundation received an additional $3 million to continue our
conservation partnership. This time the Foundation was able to exceed a
3:1 non-Federal to Federal investment ratio by matching the $3 million
appropriated by the Subcommittee with more than $10.5 million in non-
Federal funds.
Our success continued in fiscal year 2002 as we were able to once
again achieve a 3:1 non-Federal to Federal matching ratio by turning
the $3 million appropriated to the Foundation into more than $12
million in on-the-ground conservation. In total, during the past 3
years the Foundation has been able to support 185 grant projects in 43
states by matching the $9 million in appropriated funds with more than
$27 million in non-Federal funds for a total of $36 million in on-the-
ground conservation. Although we have not received our fiscal year 2003
funds yet, we fully anticipate receiving more good project proposals
than we will be able to fund.
You might ask how do we do it. The Foundation provides competitive
grants that are matched by the grantee with non-Federal funds and in-
kind services. Those grantees include Resource Conservation and
Development Councils, conservation districts and non-profit
organizations. The Foundation also works to provide private funds
through the generosity of one of our growing number of corporate and
foundation partners. For example, Federal funds awarded through our
NRCS grant program have been supplemented with funding from the Shell
Oil Company, the FMC Corporation, Anheuser-Bush Companies, Inc., the
Summer T. McKnight Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation and
the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. In fiscal year 2002 alone,
these organizations provided more than a quarter of a million dollars
to enhance our NRCS partnership grants.

Working Landscapes
Through our partnership we work with NRCS to identify and fund
projects that have strong support in affected agricultural and rural
communities. We place our highest priority on projects integrating
conservation practices on ongoing agricultural, ranching and forestry
operations. We fund partners and provide expertise by engaging
watershed experts, ranchers, foresters, farmers, local governments and
non-profits to undertake on-the-ground private land activities with
willing landowners.
The Foundation has provided critical support to organizations that
are assisting farmers and ranchers implement Farm Bill programs.
Through these efforts the Foundation has helped to restore and protect
thousands of acres of buffer, wetland and grassland habitats. From
fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2002 the Foundation's partnership
with the NRCS has lead to the direct restoration of 177,716 acres of
farmland and rangeland and to 638 miles of restored streams and rivers.
The Iowa Buffer and Wetland Enrollment project is an example of a great
working landscape project. With $37,500 in Federal funds and $387,500
in non Federal funds, the grantee, Pheasants Forever, worked with Soil
and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) to sign up 58,790 acres of
buffers and small wetlands to the Continuous Conservation Reserve
Program (CCRP). The program was implemented in approximately 70 SWCD's
in Iowa.
The Foundation has also invested heavily in efforts to improve the
ecological health of working agricultural lands. Grantees supported by
the Foundation have worked with farmers and ranchers to reduce
agricultural runoff, remove invasive species and restore native
ecosystems. An example of one of our stellar projects is the
Conservation on Wisconsin Blufflands project. The grantee, The Prairie
Enthusiasts, are utilizing $12,500 in Federal funds and $60,000 in non-
Federal funds to work with local private landowners in managing prairie
and oak savanna remnants in southern Wisconsin. Oak savanna is one of
the most rare plant communities in North America and requires active
management to properly maintain. This project seeks to work with 30
private landowners on 2,000 acres of land to connect adjacent prairie
remnants through landowner management practices.

Conserving Fish, Wildlife and Plants
With our NRCS dollars, the Foundation funds projects that directly
benefit diverse fish and wildlife species including, salmon in the
west, migratory birds in the midwest and grassland birds in the south.
Habitat for native fish has been restored on private lands throughout
the United States through vegetative planting, streambank
stabilization, livestock fencing and nutrient reduction efforts. In
addition to improving water quality, efforts have been undertaken by
our grantees to reduce water loss associated with irrigation systems.
By reducing the water taken from rivers for irrigation purposes, there
is less chance that drought will negatively impact aquatic life.
A project that highlights our restoration of native fish is the
Thistle Creek (UT) Riparian Restoration project. With $25,000 in
Federal funds and $51,600 in non-Federal funds the Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources restored 3,500 feet of stream corridor and 30 acres
of associated riparian habitat on a working ranch in Utah County, Utah.
The project improved the spawning and rearing habitat for the
leatherside chub, a state sensitive species, and served as a
demonstration site to education local landowners on the value of
properly functioning streams to the ecological health of the land.
We also measure our success in part by preventing the listing of
species under the Endangered Species Act and by stabilizing and
hopefully moving others off the list. Some species that have received
support through our NRCS grant program include salmonids, golden-
cheeked warblers, black-tailed prairie dogs and Karner blue
butterflies. We invest in common sense and innovative cooperative
approaches to endangered species, building bridges between the
government and the private sector.

Expanding Conservation Education Opportunities
Our grants also use our NRCS dollars to expand conservation
education opportunities. Of our fiscal year 2002 NRCS partnership
grants, approximately one fourth contained an environmental education
component. Some of the conservation education projects supported
through our NRCS grant program seek to educate farmers and ranchers on
conservation practices while demonstrating how best management
practices and wildlife incentives provide both environmental and
economic benefits. Other projects have provided training to secondary
school teachers on the ecological, economic and cultural benefits of
rangeland and farmland conservation. The Limited Resource Farmer
Outreach (MS) grant is a good example to highlight. In this project,
the grantee, Northwest Mississippi Resource Conservation & Development
Council, was awarded $57,500 in Federal funds that were matched with
$138,000 in nonfederal funds to increase limited resource farmer
knowledge of and participation in conservation practices. The project
made conservation methods available to the farmers, assisted them in
their implementation and demonstrated the environmental and economic
benefits derived from these programs.

Accountability and Grantsmanship
All potential grants are subject to a peer review process involving
local NRCS staff, state agency staff, academics, commodity and
environmental interests, corporations, and others. The review process
examines the project's conservation need, technical merit, the support
of the local community, the variety of partners, and the amount of
proposed non-Federal cost share. We also provide a 30 day notification
to the Member of Congress for the congressional district in which a
grant will be funded prior to making the grant. In addition, the
Foundation requires strict financial reporting by grantees and is
subject to an annual audit.

Basic Facts About the Foundation
The Foundation promotes conservation solutions by awarding
challenge grants using its Federally appropriated funds to match
private sector funds. We have a statutory requirement to match Federal
funds with at least an equal amount of non-federal funds, which we
consistently exceed. No federal Agriculture Subcommittee appropriations
meet our administrative expenses--these costs are met through private
fundraising activities distinct from our matching grant fundraising.
The Foundation assesses administrative fees for programs when an agency
asks us to carry out a special project, such as the ``Friends''
Initiative to benefit the National Wildlife Refuge system. The fee is
five percent or less and does not involve the funds appropriated to the
Foundation.
The Foundation is governed by a 25-member Board of Directors
appointed by the Secretary of The Interior. At the direction of
Congress, the Board operates on a nonpartisan basis. Directors do not
receive any financial compensation for service on the Board; in fact,
all of our directors make financial contributions to the Foundation. It
is a diverse Board, representing the corporate, philanthropic, and
conservation communities; all with a tenacious commitment to fish and
wildlife conservation.
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation continues to be one of,
if not the, most cost-effective conservation program funded in part by
the Federal Government. By implementing real-world solutions with the
private sector while avoiding regulatory or advocacy activity, our
approach is more consistent with this Congress' philosophy than ever
before. We serve as a model for bringing private sector leadership to
Federal agencies and for developing cooperative solutions to
environmental issues. We are confident that the money you appropriate
to the Foundation will continue to make a difference.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Organization for Rare Disorders
(NORD)

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee
on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies, the National
Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) wishes to express its views
regarding appropriations for the Orphan Products Research Grants
Program administered by the Office of Orphan Product Development (OOPD)
at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
On November 6, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Rare
Diseases Orphan Product Development Act, Public Law 107-281, sponsored
by Representative Mark Foley. The purpose of the Act is to ``increase
the national investment in the development of diagnostics and
treatments for patients with rare diseases and disorders,'' as follows:

Sec. 3. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; GRANTS AND CONTRACTS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF ORPHAN DRUGS.
Subsection (c) of section 5 of the Orphan Drug Act (21 U.S.C.
360ee(c)) is amended to read as follows:
``(c)'' For grants and contracts under subsection (a), there is
authorized to be appropriated such sums as already have been
appropriated for fiscal year 2002, and $25,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 2003 through 2006.''

As NORD, and the 25 million Americans affected by rare diseases
celebrate the 20th anniversary of the passage of the Orphan Drug Act,
we respectfully request that this Committee reconfirm Congress'
commitment to the rare disease community by increasing funding for
research on needed diagnostics and therapeutics. Specifically, we
request that this Committee support an increase in funding for the
FDA's Orphan Product Research Grants program to the $25 million
authorized in the Rare Diseases Orphan Product Development Act (Public
Law 107-281), and for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2008.
Background
In 1982, the U.S. Congress passed the Orphan Drug Act, (ODA),
Public Law 97-414, and on January 4, 1983, President Ronald Reagan
signed it into law. Both the Congress and the Administration recognized
that ``a pharmaceutical company which develops an orphan drug may
reasonably expect the drug to generate relatively small sales in
comparison to the cost of developing the drug and consequently to incur
a financial loss.'' It also found that, ``there is reason to believe
that some promising orphan drugs will not be developed unless changes
are made in the applicable Federal laws to reduce the costs of
developing such drugs and to provide financial incentives to develop
such drugs.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Orphan Drug Act, Public Law 97-414.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial incentives of the ODA include:
--Seven years marketing exclusivity for the first company to develop
an orphan drug for a rare disease;
--User fee waiver;
--User fee waiver;
--Tax credits for the costs of clinical research;
--Establishment the FDA Orphan Product Research Grants program to
support small clinical trials on new orphan drugs, biologics,
devices and medical foods;
--The law defines a rare disease or condition as any disease or
condition which ``(A) affects less than 200,000 persons in the
United States, or (B) affects more than 200,000 in the United
States for which there is no reasonable expectation that the
cost of developing and making available in the United States a
drug for such disease or condition will be recovered from sales
in the United States of such drug.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Orphan Drug Act, as amended October 1984, Public Law 98-
551.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orphan Products Defined
``Orphan products'' are treatments for rare conditions that have
small potential markets and thus are not attractive to the commercial
sector. Such treatments were not being developed for ``orphan''
diseases by the private sector until the Orphan Drug Act was enacted in
1983. For example, only 10 products specifically for the treatment of
rare diseases were developed by the pharmaceutical industry during the
10 years prior to 1983.
Since 1983, the FDA has approved 238 orphan drugs for marketing,
and more than 900 additional orphan drugs are in the research pipeline
--85 percent are used for serious and/or life-threatening diseases
--31 percent are for rare cancers
--11 percent are for metabolic disorders
--50 percent are for pediatric uses
--20 percent of orphan designations are for novel biotechnology
products.
According to the FDA Office of Orphan Product Development, these
currently marketed orphan drugs are helping over 11 million Americans
and millions more around the world.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Haffner, Marlene E., Whitley, Janet and Moses, Marie. Two
decades of orphan product development, Nature Reviews, October 2002,
pp. 821-825.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orphan Products Research Grants Program
In 1982, Congress passed the Orphan Drug Act to provide funding for
pivotal clinical trials on new orphan drugs, medical devices, and
medical foods for rare diseases.
Of the 238 orphan products currently approved for marketing, 29 (25
drugs and 4 medical devices) have been developed with funding from the
FDA's orphan product research grants. These small research grants are
critically important to academic scientists trying to develop
preliminary data they can use to attract commercial sponsors who will
develop their treatment and bring it to the American market. They are
also important to small companies developing sufficient data to attract
investment capital. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\``The Orphan Drug Act has proven particularly helpful to the
biotechnology industry that emerged in the years following passage.
This young, volatile industry is heavily dependent on private capital
to fund research and development.'' The Orphan Drug Act, Implementation
and Impact. DHHS, Office of Inspector General, OEI-09-00-00380, May
2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-one of the 29 products developed through funding from the
FDA's Orphan Products Research Grants Program were awarded to
investigators at academic centers. The remainder went to start-up firms
(see attached), thus ``bridging the gap between basic research,
clinical development and marketing approval.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Haffner, et al.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 80 applications for new orphan product research
grants are received each year, but until now only 20 percent of those
new applications have actually been funded annually.
Most of FDA's Orphan Products Research Grants support small
clinical trials at academic institutions throughout the nation to
develop the preliminary evidence that is necessary to attract
commercial sponsors, This unique research grant program is the
quintessential model for a successful government/industry partnership,
filling a major gap between academic research and the private sector,
and creating lifesaving products needed throughout the world. For
example,
--Children with Severe Combined Immune Deficiency (``Bubble Boy
Disease'') no longer have to live in a plastic bubble because
now their immune systems can fight off germs, thanks to an
orphan drug developed with these grant funds.
--Children with urea cycle disorders no longer slip into a coma and
die because an orphan drug enables their bodies to eliminate
toxic levels of ammonia;
--Babies born without ribs no longer suffocate in infancy because an
artificial rib (orphan medical device) is being developed now
with funds from the Orphan Products Research Grants Program
that allows the children's lungs to expand and breathe;
--Narcolepsy, Cystic fibrosis, Crohn's disease, and multiple
sclerosis drugs are on the market today only because these
grants supported some of their clinical research.

Conclusion
Many diseases and conditions are simply too rare to attract private
investment because the commercial sector is not interested in
developing treatments for small markets. The investment necessary for
research and development of new drugs and devices is too large in
comparison to the size of the potential market for a rare disease. The
FDA's Orphan Products Research Grants program enables scientists to
develop the preliminary data necessary to show that a drug, biologic,
device or food is safe and probably effective, making commercial
development less risky. Only then will a company be interested in
adopting the product and bringing it through the FDA approval process.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has catalogued 6,000 rare
diseases, some of which are familiar ailments including Tourette
Syndrome, Sickle Cell Anemia and Hemophilia. Yet there are thousands of
other devastating rare diseases that are unfamiliar to the public and
the medical community.
--Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressive (FOP) is a genetic disorder
``in which the body transforms its muscles, tendons, and
ligaments into bone.'' Patient population: 125.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Maeder, Thomas. Adopting Orphan Diseases. Red Herring, January
16,2001, pp. 128-134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Sturge-Weber Syndrome is a condition characterized by excessive
blood vessel growth, accumulation of calcium in the brain and
seizures. Patient population: less than ten thousand.
--Angelman Disease is characterized by severe mental retardation,
prolonged inappropriate laughter, facial abnormalities, and
impaired movement control. Patient population: approximately
700.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Maeder, p. 130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the patients affected by these and thousands of other rare
diseases, the prospects for a cure or the discovery of a therapy to
alleviate symptoms have been dim. Diagnosis takes from one to six years
in 35 percent of the cases, and more than seven years in 15 percent.\8\
Even when the cause of the disease is discovered, (e.g., a genetic
defect, infectious agent, etc.), most pharmaceutical companies would be
very hesitant to invest in development of a new treatment unless there
is evidence from small clinical trials indicating that an experimental
treatment will work. These small research grants from the FDA provide
support for academic researchers and small companies so they can
develop the evidence necessary to attract commercial sponsors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Report of the National Commission on Orphan Diseases,
Publication Number HRP-090-7248, United States Government Printing
Office, February, 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FDA's Orphan Products Research Grants Program is not new. It
has a 21-year record of accomplishment, and it has already been
responsible for the development of 29 life-saving orphan products that
would not be on the market today if this program had not existed. When
Congress passed the Rare Diseases Orphan Product Development Act last
year, it sent a strong signal to rare disease patients in every state
of the union that it recognizes the critical importance of these
research grants, it salutes the progress that the ODA has pioneered in
the last two decades, and Congress implicitly intends to appropriate
$25 million to the FDA's Orphan Product Research Grants Program which
represents only $1 for every rare disease patient in the United states.
NORD, on behalf of the 25 million medically disenfranchised
Americans and their families affected by rare ``orphan'' diseases,
respectfully requests that the members of this Subcommittee appropriate
no less than $25 million to the FDA Orphan Products Research Grants
Program for fiscal year 2004 and for each of the fiscal years 2005
through 2008.as provided for in the Rare Diseases Orphan Product
Development Act. This funding will fill the void between government and
the private sector, and propel new treatments forward from academic
laboratories to patients' bedsides and ultimately to our local
pharmacies. Your compassion and insight will put new orphan drugs and
devices into the waiting hands of critically ill patients.

About NORD
NORD is a federation of approximately 130 voluntary health
organizations and over 50,000 individual patients, healthcare providers
and clinical researchers dedicated to helping the 25 million people in
the United States affected by rare ``orphan'' diseases. NORD is
committed to the identification, treatment, and cure of rare disorders
through programs of education, advocacy, research and service. For
additional information, please contact Diane E. Dorman, Vice President
for Public Policy, in NORD's Washington Office at (202) 258-6457 or
[email protected].

ATTACHMENT I--PUBLIC LAW 107-281

AN ACT To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect
to the development of products for rare diseases.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Rare Diseases Orphan Product
Development Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Rare diseases and disorders are those which affect
small patient populations, typically populations smaller than
200,000 individuals in the United States. Such diseases and
conditions include Huntington's disease, amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease), Tourette syndrome, Crohn's
disease, cystic fibrosis, cystinosis, and Duchenne muscular
dystrophy.
(2) For many years, the 25,000,000 Americans suffering from
the over 6,000 rare diseases and disorders were denied access
to effective medicines because prescription drug manufacturers
could rarely make a profit from marketing drugs for such small
groups of patients. The prescription drug industry did not
adequately fund research into such treatments. Despite the
urgent health need for these medicines, they came to be known
as ``orphan drugs'' because no companies would commercialize
them.
(3) During the 1970s, an organization called the National
Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) was founded to provide
services and to lobby on behalf of patients with rare diseases
and disorders. NORD was instrumental in pressing Congress for
legislation to encourage the development of orphan drugs.
(4) The Orphan Drug Act created financial incentives for
the research and production of such orphan drugs. New Federal
programs at the National Institutes of Health and the Food and
Drug Administration encouraged clinical research and commercial
product development for products that target rare diseases. An
Orphan Products Board was established to promote the
development of drugs and devices for rare diseases or
disorders.
(5) Before 1983, some 38 orphan drugs had been developed.
Since the enactment of the Orphan Drug Act, more than 220 new
orphan drugs have been approved and marketed in the United
States and more than 800 additional drugs are in the research
pipeline.
(6) Despite the tremendous success of the Orphan Drug Act,
rare diseases and disorders deserve greater emphasis in the
national biomedical research enterprise.
(7) The Food and Drug Administration supports small
clinical trials through Orphan Products Research Grants. Such
grants embody successful partnerships of government and
industry, and have led to the development of at least 23 drugs
and four medical devices for rare diseases and disorders. Yet
the appropriations in fiscal year 2001 for such grants were
less than in fiscal year 1995.
(b) Purposes.--The purpose of this Act is to increase the national
investment in the development of diagnostics and treatments for
patients with rare diseases and disorders.

SEC. 3. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; GRANTS AND CONTRACTS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF ORPHAN DRUGS.

Subsection (c) of section 5 of the Orphan Drug Act (21 U.S.C.
360ee(c)) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) For grants and contracts under subsection (a), there are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as already have been
appropriated for fiscal year 2002, and $25,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 2003 through 2006.''.

SEC. 4. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

Section 527(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 360cc(a)) is amended in the matter following paragraph (2)--
(1) by striking ``, of such certification,''; and
(2) by striking ``, the issuance of the certification,''.
Passed the House of Representatives October 1, 2002.
Approved November 6, 2002.

ATTACHMENT II

ATTACHMENT III
U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION GRANT SUPPORTED PRODUCTS WITH
MARKETING APPROVAL

Product: 4-methylpyrazole (trade name Antizole); Fomepizole
Indication: Ethylene Glycol and Methanol Poisoning
Approval Date: 12/04/1997
Institution: Orphan Medical, Inc.
Investigator: Dr. Dayton Reardan

Product: Actimmune
Indication: Osteopetrosis
Approval Date: 02/11/2000
Institution: Medical University of South Carolina
Investigator: Dr. Lester Key

Product: Auditory Brainstem Implant
Indication: Bilateral deafness
Approval Date: 10/24/00
Institution: Cochlear Corp.
Investigator: Dr. Steven J. Staller

Product: Anti-TNF (cA2) (trade name Remicade)
Indication: Severe Crohns Disease
Approval Date: 08/24/1998
Institution: Centocor, Inc.
Investigator: Dr. Richard McCloskey

Product: Baclofen Intrathecal (trade name Lioresal)
Indication: Severe Spasticity
Approval Date: 06/25/1992
Institution: Rush-Presbyterian-St. Lukes' Medical Center
Investigator: Dr. Richard Penn

Product: Betaine (trade name Cystadane)
Indication: Homocystinuria
Approval Date: 10/20/1996
Institution: University of Virginia
Investigator: Dr. William Wilson

Product: Busulfan IV
Indication: Bone Marrow Ablation
Approval Date: 02/04/1999
Institution: UT MD Anderson Cancer Center
Investigator: Dr. Borge Andersson

Product: Cladribine (trade name Leustatin)
Indication: Mycosis fungoides and hairy cell leukemia
Approval Date: 03/01/1993
Institution: Scripps Research Institute
Investigator: Dr. Ernest Beutler

Product: Clonidine (trade name Duraclon)
Indication: Intractable pain in cancer patients
Approval Date: 10/02/1996
Institution: Wake Forest University
Investigator: Dr. James Eisenach

Product: CroFab
Indication: Crotalid snake bites
Approval Date: 10/02/00
Institution: Therapeutic Antibodies, Inc.
Investigator: Dr. Richard C. Dart

Product: Cysteamine (trade name Cystagon)
Indication: Nephropathic Cystinosis
Approval Date: 08/15/1994
Institution: University of California, San Diego
Investigator: Dr. Jerry Schneider

Product: Ganciclovir Intravitreal (trade name Vitrasert)
Indication: CMV Retinitis
Approval Date: 03/04/1996
Institution: University of Kentucky Research Foundation
Investigator: Dr. Thomas Smith

Product: Glatiramer acetate (trade name Copaxone)
Indication: Relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis
Approval Date: 12/20/1996
Institution: Lemmon Company
Investigator: Dr. Yafith Stark

Product: Histrelin Acetate (trade name Supprelin)
Indication: Central precocious puberty
Approval Date: 12/24/1991
Institution: Massachusetts General Hospital
Investigator: Dr. Paul Boepple

Product: In-Exsufflator (trade name Cofflator)
Indication: Assist Ventilator dependent patients
Approval Date: 02/01/1993
Institution: University of Medicine and Dentistry of N.J.
Investigator: Dr. John Bach

Product: Iobenguane sulfate I-131
Indication: Localization of Pheochromocytoma
Approval Date: 03/24/1994
Institution: University of Michigan
Investigator: Dr. Brahm Shapiro

Product: Levocarnitine (trade name Carnitor)
Indication: Primary and Secondary Carnitine Deficiency of Genetic
Origin
Approval Date: 12/16/1992
Institution: Duke University
Investigator: Dr. Charles Roe

Product: Nafarelin Acetate Intranasal (trade name Synarel)
Indication: Central Precocious Puberty
Approval Date: 02/06/1992
Institution: Baylor College of Medicine
Investigator: Dr. John Kirkland

Product: Neurostimulator implantable electrodes
Indication: Quadra-paraplegia with loss of hand function
Approval Date: 08/18/1997
Institution: Case Western Reserve University
Investigator: Dr. Paul Peckham

Product: Nitisinone (trade name Orfadin)
Indication: Treatment of tyrosinemia type 1.
Approval Date: 01/18/2002
Institution: Swedish Orphan AB
Investigator: Dr. Ronald Leonardi

Product: Pegademase (trade name Adagen)
Indication: ADA replacement in Severe Combined Immunogenicity
Disease
Approval Date: 03/21/1990
Institution: Enzon, Inc.
Investigator: Dr. Abraham Abuchowski

Product: Pulmonary angioscope
Indication: Visualization of pulmonary emboli
Approval Date: 01/31/1989
Institution: Regents of the University of California
Investigator: Dr. Deborah Shure

Product: Sodium phenylbutyrate
Indication: Urea cycle disorders
Approval Date: 04/30/1996
Institution: Johns Hopkins University
Investigator: Dr. Saul Brusilow

Product: Succimer (trade name Chemet)
Indication: Lead Poisoning in Children
Approval Date: 01/30/1991
Institution: The Kennedy Institute
Investigator: Dr. J. Julian Chisolm

Product: Sucrase enzyme
Indication: Sucrase-isomaltase deficiency
Approval Date: 04/09/1998
Institution: Hartford Hospital
Investigator: Dr. Jeffrey Hyams

Product: Tobramycin for inhalation (trade name Tobi)
Indication: Management of CF patients with Pseudomonas Aeruginosa
Approval Date: 12/22/1997
Institution: Pathogenesis Corporation
Investigator: Dr. Alan Montgomery

Product: Tretinoin (trade name Vesanoid)
Indication: Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia
Approval Date: 11/22/1995
Institution: Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases
Investigator: Dr. Raymond Warrell, Jr.

Product: Zinc Acetate (trade name Galzin)
Indication: Wilson's Disease
Approval Date: 01/28/1997
Institution: University of Michigan
Investigator: Dr. George Brewer

Product: Gamma-hydroxybutyrate
Indication: Narcolepsy
Approval Date: 07/17/02
Institution: University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
Investigator: Lawrence Scrima, Ph.D.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Potato Council

My name is Dwight Horsch. I am a potato farmer from Idaho and
current Vice President, Legislative/Government Affairs for the National
Potato Council (NPC). On behalf of the NPC, we thank you for your
attention to the needs of our potato growers.
The NPC is the only trade association representing commercial
growers in 50 states. Our growers produce both seed potatoes and
potatoes for consumption in a variety of forms. Annual production in
2001 was 444,766,000 cwt. with a farm value of $2.9 billion. Total
value is substantially increased through processing. The potato crop
clearly has a positive impact on the U.S. economy.
The potato is the most popular of all vegetables grown and consumed
in the United States and one of the most popular in the world. Annual
per capita consumption was 138.7 pounds in 2000, up from 104 pounds in
1962 and is increasing due to the advent of new products and heightened
public awareness of the potato's excellent nutritional value. Potatoes
are considered a stable consumer commodity and an integral, delicious
component of the American diet
The NPC's fiscal year 2004 appropriations priorities are as
follows:
Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (CSREES)
Potato Special Grant Program.--The NPC urges that the $1.75 million
be appropriated for fiscal year 2004. The House recommended $1.6
million for fiscal year 2003, however only $1.584 million was included
in the final bill. This has been a highly successful program and the
number of funding requests from various potato-producing regions is
increasing.
The NPC also urges that the Congress, once again, include Committee
report language as follows:

``Potato research.--The Committee expects the Department to ensure
that funds provided to CSREES for potato research are utilized for
varietal development testing. Further, these funds are to be awarded
competitively after review by the Potato Industry Working Group.''
Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
The NPC urges that the Congress once again add Committee report
language urging the ARS to work with the NPC on how overall research
funds can best be utilized for grower priorities.
The NPC urges that the Congress maintain all increases for potato
research provided in fiscal year 2001, 2002 and 2003 that have been
proposed for deletion or redirection in the Administration's fiscal
year 2004 budget request.
Prosser, Washington.--Appropriate $250,000 for exotic diseases
including late blight and PVYN on potatoes. The Congress appropriated
$200,000 in fiscal year 2003 for this activity. The funds appropriated
in fiscal year 2001 should remain and continue to be used for breeding
for resistant potato varieties and not be diverted to new areas of
research.
Grand Forks and East Grand Forks.--Appropriate $350,000 for a new
scientist to be located at the Potato Research worksite in East Grand
Forks, Minnesota. The scientist would address the effects of
postharvest storage and treatments on potato market quality and value-
added traits. Since over 70 percent of the U.S. fall potato crop is
placed into storage for year around sale, this research will benefit
potato growers throughout the country.
Fort Collins, Colorado.--Appropriate $200,000 for the Soil, Plant,
and Nutrient Research Program at Fort Collins to conduct research to
enhance water and soil quality with precision conservation farming. The
Congress provided $100,000 in fiscal year 2003.
Beltsville, Maryland.--Improving the nutritional value of potatoes
is a high priority of the NPC. Research should also be initiated at the
Beltsville Vegetable Laboratory that combines traditional breeding and
plant biotechnology to increase the nutritional value of the potato and
add value to the crop. The nutrition research currently underway in the
Beltsville potato breeding program relates to the development of potato
tubers with anti-cancer properties (high lutein/carotene) and a product
to help alleviate osteoporosis (high available tuber calcium).
Approximately $150,000 is currently devoted to this newly developing
field. The NPC urges that $300,000 be appropriated in fiscal year 2004
for this important research effort.
Plant Protection and Quarantine Service (APHIS-USDA).--The NPC
urges that the Congress appropriate $971,000 for the Golden Nematode
Quarantine Program as requested in the Administration's budget request.
The National Potato Council also supports the budget request of $27
million for pest detection and at least $12 million for trade issues
resolution and management. As new trade agreements are negotiated, the
agency must have the necessary staff and technology to detect and to
deal with the threat of pests and diseases. The NPC relies heavily on
APHIS-PPQ resources to resolve phytosanitary trade barriers.
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).--Appropriate the
$4.8 million in the Administration's budget request for core programs
of NASS and ensure that the potato grade and quality survey program is
continued.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Rural Telecom Association

SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY REQUESTS

Project involved.--Telecommunications lending programs administered
by the Rural Utilities Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Actions proposed:
--Supporting loan levels for fiscal year 2004 in the same amounts as
those contained in the fiscal year 2003 Agriculture
Appropriations Act for cost-of-money, Rural Telephone Bank and
guaranteed loan programs and the associated subsidy to fund
those programs at the existing level. Supporting loans in the
hardship program at the level requested in the budget. Opposing
the budget recommendation to not fund new Rural Telephone Bank
loans in fiscal year 2004.
--Supporting continued funding, as requested in the President's
budget, in the amount of $25 million in loan and grant
authority designated for distance learning and telemedicine
purposes and $2 million in grants for broadband facilities and
internet access in rural areas.
--Opposing the budget request seeking to cancel the $20 million in
mandatory funding provided in last year's farm act for direct
loans for broadband deployment and replacing it with
discretionary funding authority amounting to less than half
that amount in fiscal year 2004. Seeking language to clarify
that all rural communities under 20,000 population will qualify
for loans in fiscal year 2004 under the new broadband loan
program consistent with the existing eligibility criteria for
the distance learning, telemedicine and pilot broadband
programs.
--Supporting continuation of the restriction on retirement of Rural
Telephone Bank Class A stock at the level contained in the
fiscal year 2003 Agriculture Appropriations Act and an
extension of the prohibition against the transfer of Rural
Telephone Bank funds to the general fund. Opposing the proposal
contained in the budget to transfer funds from the unobligated
balances of the liquidating account of the Rural Telephone Bank
for the bank's administrative expenses.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: My name is John F. O'Neal.
I am General Counsel of the National Rural Telecom Association. NRTA is
comprised of commercial telephone companies that borrow their capital
needs from the Rural Utilities Service of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (RUS) to furnish and improve telephone service in rural
areas. Approximately 1000, or 71 percent of the nation's local
telephone systems borrow from RUS. About three-fourths of these are
commercial telephone companies. RUS borrowers serve almost 6 million
subscribers in 46 states and employ over 22,000 people. In accepting
loan funds, borrowers assume an obligation under the act to serve the
widest practical number of rural users within their service area.

PROGRAM BACKGROUND

Rural telephone systems have an ongoing need for long-term, fixed
rate capital at affordable interest rates. Since 1949, that capital has
been provided through telecommunications lending programs administered
by the Rural Utilities Service and its predecessor, the Rural
Electrification Agency (REA).
RUS loans are made exclusively for capital improvements and loan
funds are segregated from borrower operating revenues. Loans are not
made to fund operating revenues or profits of the borrower system.
There is a proscription in the Act against loans duplicating existing
facilities that provide adequate service and state authority to
regulate telephone service is expressly preserved under the Rural
Electrification Act.
Rural telephone systems operate at a severe geographical handicap
when compared with other telephone companies. While almost 6 million
rural telephone subscribers receive telephone service from RUS borrower
systems, they account for only four percent of total U.S. subscribers.
On the other hand, borrower service territories total 37 percent of the
land area--nearly 1.5 million square miles. RUS borrowers average about
six subscribers per mile of telephone line and have an average of more
than 1,000 route miles of lines in their systems.
Because of low-density and the inherent high cost of serving these
areas, Congress made long-term, fixed rate loans available at
reasonable rates of interest to assure that rural telephone
subscribers, the ultimate beneficiaries of these programs, have
comparable telephone service with their urban counterparts at
affordable subscriber rates. This principle is especially valid today
as the United States endeavors to deploy broadband technology and as
customers and regulators constantly demand improved and enhanced
services. At the same time, the underlying statutory authority
governing the current program has undergone significant change. In
1993, telecommunications lending was refocused toward facilities
modernization. Much of the subsidy cost has been eliminated from the
program. In fact, most telecommunications lending programs now generate
revenue for the government. The subsidy that remains has been targeted
to the highest cost, lowest density systems in accordance with this
administration's stated objectives.
We are proud to state once again for the record that there has
never been a default in the RUS/REA telephone program! All loans have
been repaid in accordance with their terms, almost $11 billion in
principal and interest at the end of the last fiscal year.

NEED FOR RUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS LENDING CONTINUES

The need for rural telecommunications lending is great today,
possibly even greater than in the past. Technological advances make it
imperative that rural telephone companies upgrade their systems to keep
pace with improvements and provide the latest available technology to
their subscribers. And last year, Congress established a national
policy initiative mandating access to broadband for rural areas. But
rapid technological changes and the inherently higher costs to serve
rural areas have not abated, and targeted support remains essential.
Competition among telephone systems and other technological
platforms has increased pressures to shift more costs onto rural
ratepayers. These shifts led to increases in both interstate subscriber
line charges and universal service surcharges on end users to recover
the costs of interstate providers' assessments to fund the Federal
mechanisms. Pressures to recover more of the higher costs of rural
service from rural customers to compete in urban markets will further
burden rural consumers. There is a growing funding crisis for the
statutory safeguards adopted in 1996 to ensure that rates, services and
network development in rural America will be reasonably comparable to
urban telecommunications opportunities.
The FCC and the states have yet to honor the balance Congress
achieved in the 1996 policy, as regulators (a) radically revise the
mechanisms for preserving and advancing universal service, (b)
interpret the Act's different urban and rural rules for how incumbent
universal service providers and their competitors connect their
networks and compensate each other (c) respond to pressures to
deregulate. Regulators continue to give new entrants advantages at the
expense of statutory universal service provisions. The FCC appears to
remain committed to further extending its wholly inadequate way to
measure the costs of modern, nationwide access to telecommunications
and information. The FCC needs to reorder its priorities to ensure that
rural Americans are not denied the ongoing network development and new
services the Act requires.
expanded congressional mandates for rural telecommunications
Considerable loan demand is being generated because of additional
mandates for enhanced rural telecommunications standards contained in
the authorizing legislation. We are, therefore, recommending the
following loan levels for fiscal year 2004 and the appropriation of the
associated subsidy costs to support these levels: 5 percent Hardship
Loans:

[In dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 percent Hardship Loans................................ $145,000,000
Cost-of-Money Loans..................................... 300,000,000
Guaranteed Loans........................................ 120,000,000
Rural Telephone Bank Loans.............................. 175,000,000
---------------
Total............................................. 740,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are essentially the same levels established in the fiscal
year 2003 appropriations act for the cost-of-money, Rural Telephone
Bank and guaranteed loan programs and the same amount for hardship
loans as requested in the President's budget for fiscal year 2004. The
authorized levels of loans in all programs were fully obligated in
fiscal year 2002 and we expect these levels to be met in fiscal year
2003. We believe that the needs of this program balanced with the
minimal cost to the taxpayer make the case for its continuation at the
stated levels.

RURAL TELEPHONE BANK LOANS

The administration again proposes to not fund new Rural Telephone
Bank (RTB) loans in fiscal year 2004.
The Rural Telephone Bank was established by Congress in 1971 to
provide supplemental financing for rural telephone systems with the
objective that the bank ultimately would be owned and operated by its
private shareholders. Privatization of the RTB began in 1995 under the
current law and the retirement of Class A government stock is
proceeding annually at the rate of approximately $25 million per year.
The Bank has now retired about 27 percent, of the government's $592
million investment. As we pointed out in our testimony last year, not
funding new loans in the next fiscal year could actually impede
privatization of the Bank since the law requires that the Bank annually
retire government stock at the rate of at least 5 percent of the amount
of Class B stock sold in connection with new loans. If no new loans
were made, there would be no minimum requirement for retirement of
additional government stock.
The current loan level of $175 million has remained the same for
many years. As a matter of fact, after factoring in the eroding effect
of inflation, loan levels over the years have actually been reduced
systematically. Despite this fact, we believe that the $175 million
level is adequate to meet current program needs and strikes a cost
effective balance for the taxpayer. If no bank loans were made in
fiscal year 2004, the budgetary outlay savings would be minimal because
RTB loans are funded over a multi-year period. Moreover, if
administration interest rate predictions are accurate, RTB loans will
generate a profit for the government because of the minimum statutory
interest rate of 5 percent.

BROADBAND LOANS UNDER THE 2002 FARM ACT (PUBLIC LAW 101-171)

The administration is recommending that the mandatory funding of
loans for the deployment of broadband technology in rural areas
provided in last year's farm act in the amount of $20 million (new
section 601(j)(1)(A) of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936) be
cancelled in fiscal year 2004 and is suggesting a general provision in
the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill (Sec. 722(a)) to accomplish
this. In its place the budget requests less than half that amount, $9.1
million in new discretionary authority for theses purposes. We are
opposed to this dramatic reduction in the commitment made by Congress
last year to rural areas for the deployment of broadband technology.
The farm act program has been implemented by RUS and loans are being
made in this fiscal year pursuant to the new authority. Disrupting the
multi-year authority in the fashion recommended by the administration
would create uncertainty to prospective borrowers under the new program
and undermine Congress' efforts to accelerate deployment of this
technology to our rural citizens.
In addition, we are seeking clarifying language in the bill to
assure that all communities in the United States under 20,000
population will qualify for broadband loans in fiscal year 2004. The
enabling act eligibility provision (new section 601 of Title VI of the
Rural Electrification Act of 1936) is technically defective as enacted
and is causing substantial unintended consequences by excluding
otherwise eligible rural areas from the program. Subsection (B)
excludes from program eligibility any area that ``is not located in an
area designated as a standard metropolitan statistical area'' even
though its population is less than 20,000 (the criteria under
Subsection (A)). The Bureau of the Census has not recognized ``standard
metropolitan statistical areas'' since before 1990. This restriction
could exclude up to 40 percent of otherwise eligible rural communities
from this new program if not corrected, effectively undermining
Congress' efforts to accelerate deployment of broadband technology in
rural areas.

SPECIFIC ADDITIONAL REQUESTS

Continue the Restriction on Retirement of Class A Government Stock in
the Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) and also Continue the
Prohibition Against Transfer of RTB Funds to the General Fund
and Require the Payment of Interest
The Committee should continue the restriction on retirement of the
amount of class A stock by the Rural Telephone Bank in fiscal year
2004. The Bank is currently in the process of retiring the government's
stock as required under current law. We believe that this process which
began in fiscal year 1996 should continue to be an orderly one as
contemplated by the retirement schedule enacted seven years ago and
continued through last year's bill to retire no more than 5 percent of
the total class A stock in one year. The Rural Telephone Bank board
last year commissioned a private firm to perform a privatization study.
This study has just been completed and its recommendations are
currently being evaluated by the administration, RTB board, RTB
shareholders and interested members of the public. After that review is
complete, both Congress and the rural telephone industry will be in a
better position to evaluate the appropriate level of retirement of the
government's Class A stock in the future. In the meantime, we urge the
Committee to continue the current restriction as well as the
prohibition against the transfer of any unobligated balance in the
bank's liquidating account which is in excess of current requirements
to the general fund of the Treasury along with the requirement that the
bank receive interest on those funds. The private Class B and C
stockholders of the Rural Telephone Bank have a vested ownership
interest in the assets of the bank including its funds and their rights
should be protected. Previous appropriations acts (Fiscal Year 1997
through 2003) have recognized the ownership rights of the private class
B and C stockholders of the bank by prohibiting a similar transfer of
the bank's excess unobligated balances which otherwise would have been
required under the Federal credit reform act.

Reject Budget Proposal to Transfer Funds from RTB Liquidating Account
for Administrative Costs
The President's budget proposes that the bank assume responsibility
for its administrative costs by a transfer of funds from the
unobligated balances of the bank's liquidating account rather than
through an appropriation from the general fund of the Treasury. This
recommendation is contrary to the specific language of Sec. 403(b) of
the RTB enabling act and would require enactment of new authorizing
legislation as a prerequisite to an appropriation. It would not result
in budgetary savings and has been specifically rejected by this
Committee in previous years. No new justification is contained in this
year's budget and once again we request its rejection.
Loans and Grants for Telemedicine, Distance Learning and Internet
Access. We support the continuation in fiscal year 2004 of the $25
million in loan and grant authority provided in the President's budget
for telemedicine and distance learning purposes. Loans are made at the
government's cost-of-money. The purpose is to accelerate deployment of
telemedicine and distance learning technologies in rural areas through
the use of telecommunications, computer networks, and related advanced
technologies by students, teachers, medical professionals, and rural
residents. We also support making available $2 million in additional
funds available for grants for broadband facilities and internet access
in rural areas, as recommended in this year's budget.

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to present the association's views
concerning this vital program. The telecommunications lending programs
of RUS continue to work effectively and accomplish the objectives
established by Congress at a minimal cost to the taxpayer.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Telecommunications Cooperative
Association

SUMMARY

NTCA makes the following fiscal year fiscal year 2004 funding
recommendations with regard to the Rural Utilities Service
Telecommunications Loan Program and related programs.
--Support the provisions of the president's budget proposal calling
for the required subsidy to fully fund the RUS
Telecommunications Loan Program's Hardship Account at a $145
million level, Cost of Money Account at a $250 million level,
and the Guaranteed Account at a $100 million level.
--Reject the provisions of the president's budget proposal calling
for zero funding for the Rural Telephone Bank (RTB). Instead,
provide the required subsidy to fully fund the bank at last
fiscal year's $175 million level.
--Reject the provisions of the president's budget proposal calling
for funding the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee
Program to be funded through discretionary funding and instead
funded at a level consistent with authorizing language.
--Repeal existing language prohibiting the use of loans to serve
communities located in metropolitan statistical areas (MSA's).
--Support an extension of language that temporarily sets aside the 7
percent interest rate cap on loans made through the RUS Cost of
Money fund.
--Support an extension of the language limiting the maximum amount of
Rural Telephone Bank Class A stock that may be retired in
fiscal year 2004.
--Support an extension of the restriction against RTB Liquidating
Account funds from being transferred into the general Treasury.
--Support an extension of language prohibiting the expenditure of RTB
Liquidating Account funds to provide for the subsidy or
operational expenses of the bank.
--Support full funding of the Distance Learning and Telemedicine
Grant and Loan Program.
--Support for funding of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service Grant
and Loan Program.

Background
NTCA is a national association representing more than 560 small,
rural, cooperative and commercial, community-based local exchange
carriers (LECS) located throughout the nation. These locally owned and
operated LECS provide local exchange service to more than 2.5 million
rural Americans. While serving close to 40 percent of the geographic
United States, NTCA members serve only 4 percent of the country's
access lines. Since the creation of the RUS Telecommunications Loan
Program, more than 80 percent of NTCA's member systems have been able
to utilize the Federal program to one degree or another.
NTCA's members, like most of the country's independent LECS,
evolved to serve high-cost rural areas of the nation that were
overlooked by the industry's giants as unprofitable. On average, NTCA
members have approximately 6 subscribers per mile of infrastructure
line, compared with 130 for the larger urban-oriented LECs. This
results in an average plant investment per subscriber that is 38
percent higher for NTCA members compared to most other systems.
Congress recognized the unique financing dilemma confronting
America's small rural LECS as early as 1949, when Congress amended the
Rural Electrification Act (REA) to create the Rural Electrification
Administration Telephone Loan Program. Today, this program is known as
the RUS Telecommunications Loan Program. Through the years Congress has
periodically amended the REA to ensure that original mission--to
furnish and improve rural telephone service--was met. In 1971, the
Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) was created to as a supplemental source of
direct loan financing. In 1973, the RUS was provided with the ability
to guarantee Federal Financing Bank (FFB) and private lender notes. In
1993, Congress established a fourth lending program--the Treasury Cost
of Money account. In 2002, Congress again met the changing demands of
the telecommunications industry with the establishment of the Rural
Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program.

RUS HELPS MEET INFRASTRUCTURE DEMANDS

While the RUS has helped the subscribers of NTCA's member systems
receive service that is comparable or superior to that available
anywhere in the nation, their work is far from complete. As the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and other Federal policies continue to
evolve, and as policymakers and the public alike continue to clamor for
the deployment of advanced telecommunications services, the high costs
associated with providing modern telecommunications services in rural
areas will not diminish.
RUS telecommunications lending has stimulated billions of dollars
in private capital investment in rural communications infrastructure.
In recent years, on average, less than $13 million in Federal subsidy
has effectively generated $670 million in Federal loans and guarantees.
For every $1 Federal funds that was invested in rural communications
infrastructure, $4.50 in private funds was invested. The RUS is also
making a difference in rural schools, libraries, and hospitals. Since
1993, the RUS Distance and Learning Telemedicine Grant program has
funded hundreds of projects throughout the nation of interactive
technology in rural schools, libraries, hospitals, and health clinics.
In addition, two other RUS-related programs are making a difference
in rural America. Formerly known as the Zero Interest Loan and Grant
Program, the Rural Economic Development Grants Programs, and the Rural
Economic Development Loans Programs are now managed by the Rural
Business Cooperative Service. The two programs provide funds for the
purpose of promoting rural economic development and job creation
projects, including for feasibility studies, start-up costs, incubator
projects and other expenses tied to rural development.

NTCA'S FISCAL YEAR 2004 APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS

Fully Fund The Entire RUS Telecommunications Loan Program
It is imperative that the entire RUS Telecommunications Loan
Program be funded at the following levels:

[In dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardship Account........................................ 145,000,000
Cost of Money/Treasury Account.......................... 250,000,000
Guaranteed Account...................................... 100,000,000
Rural Telephone Bank Account............................ 175,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Included in the Farm Bill (Public Law 107--171) was authorization
of the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee program. Built
upon a record of strong demand during its pilot status, congressional
language was explicit in its intent to assist in broadband deployment
in the smallest and most rural communities in the United States.
Earlier this year, USDA and RUS officials unveiled the regulations and
were able make available $1.4 billion in loans (fiscal year 2002 and
2003 funds). Such level of funding must be maintained to meet the
continually growing needs of advanced telecommunications services
across the United States.
Additionally, to support the operations of the RUS, it is critical
that Congress provide at least $41.562 million in administrative
appropriations the president's budget proposal envisions.

Reject the President's Proposal To Provide Zero RTB Funding
The president's budget contains a proposal recommending the Rural
Telephone Bank should not be funded in fiscal year 2004. In presenting
last year's budget, the administration stated that the RTB had outgrown
its need and usefulness. NTCA adamantly disagrees as the demand for
advanced telecommunications services continues to grow and our members
continue to meet this demand. To this end, we believe the president's
decision to zero out funding for the RTB is without merit.
Privatization of the RTB is moving at pace mandated by Congress. As
this occurs, NTCA wants to ensure the financial stability of the future
Bank with minimal amount of risk for borrowers, shareholders and
taxpayers. This transition to a private entity will require legislative
changes to the Rural Electrification Act. NTCA believes this should
occur with minimal disruptions to existing capital markets. In light of
this fact, as well Congress' decision to reject the president's
previous proposal to zero out RTB funding, we urge Congress to again
reject this ill-conceived proposal and instead fully fund the bank at
its regular $175 million annual level.

Reject the President's Proposal to fund the Rural Broadband Access Loan
and Loan Guarantee Program through discretionary funding
Acting on the tremendous demand for advanced rural
telecommunications, the Congress authorized the Rural Broadband program
as part of the 2002 Farm Bill and provided for $100 million for the
program until 2007. The mandate from Congress was to provide loans to
the most underserved areas of rural America. With the proven demand of
the program established during its pilot status, NTCA believes the
President's budget request to cancel the $20 million in mandatory
funding, and instead fund through discretionary spending, should be
rejected and the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program
should be funded consistent with congressional authorization.

Repeal language prohibiting communities included in Metropolitan
Statistical Areas from eligibility under the Rural Broadband
Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program
Under the existing language, communities under 20,000 that are
located in a Metropolitan Statistical Areas are ineligible for loans
under the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program. The
intent of the authorizing language was to ensure only rural communities
would benefit by the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee
Program. Unfortunately, this language has excluded thousands of
unserved communities that would otherwise be eligible. This provision
should be repealed and program language be brought in tune with
population limits of other Rural Development programs.

Extend Removal Of the Interest Rate Cap On Treasury-Rate Loans
NTCA is also requesting that Congress again include language
removing the 7 percent interest rate cap on Treasury-rate loans. This
provision has been included in recent appropriations measures to
prevent the potential disruption of the program in the case where
interest rates exceed 7 percent and insufficient subsidy cannot support
authorized lending levels.

Extend existing language limiting the retirement of Class A stock in
the Rural Telephone Bank
The Rural Utilities Service is currently undergoing extensive
evaluation of the privatization issue. With the recent completion of
the private contractor's privatization study, the recommendations and
fiscal implications of the report are currently being examined by the
RTB Board and interested stakeholders. As the future structure of the
RTB is still currently under examination, NTCA believes existing
language limiting the amount of stock to be retired at 5 percent should
be continued.

Prohibit The Transfer Of Unobligated RTB Liquidating Account Balances
NTCA also recommends that Congress continue the prohibition against
the transfer of any unobligated balances of the Rural Telephone Bank
liquidating account to the general fund of the Treasury. This language
has routinely been included in annual appropriations measures since the
enactment of the Federal Credit Reform Act (FCRA, Public Law 101-508)
that allows such transfers to potentially occur. Restatement of this
language will ensure that the RTB's private class B & class C
stockholders are not stripped of the value of their statutorily
mandated investment in the Bank.

Prohibit RTB From Self Funding Subsidy and Administrative Costs
NTCA urges Congress to maintain its prohibition against unobligated
RTB Liquidating Account Balances being used to cover the bank's
administrative and operational expenses for the following reasons: (1)
such action would require amending the REA, (2) the proposal appears to
be in conflict with the intent of the FCRA, (3) the proposal will not
result in Federal budgetary savings, (4) it is unnecessary to the
determination of whether the bank could operate independently, and thus
would amount to wasting the resources of the bank which could be put to
better use upon its complete privatization.

Continue Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loan and Grant Program
The RUS Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loan and Grant program
has proven to be an indispensable tool for rural development. In this
regard NTCA urges Congress to provide adequate funding for this
critical program. NTCA supports the recommendations for this program
that are contained in the president's budget proposal.

Preserve RBCS Rural Development Grant and Loan Programs
Likewise, NTCA has witnessed the good these programs have done for
rural communities. NTCA urges Congress to ensure adequate funding is at
levels that are adequate to meet current demand for the programs.

CONCLUSION

The RUS Telecommunications Loan Program bears a proud record of
commitment, service and achievement to rural America. Never in its
entire history has the program lost a dollar to abuse or default--
unparalleled feat for any government-sponsored lending program. Cleary
such a successful program should remain in place to continue ensuring
rural Americans have the opportunity to play a leading role in the
information age in which we live. After all, an operational and
advanced rural segment of the nation's telecommunications
infrastructure is critical to truly ensuring that the national
objective of universal telecommunications service is fulfilled. We look
forward to working with you to accomplish this objective.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP), I appreciate this
opportunity to provide the Subcommittee with the turfgrass industry's
perspective in support of continuation of the $55,000 appropriation for
the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP) included in the
President's fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Agricultural
Research Service (ARS). Also, I appreciate the opportunity to present
to you the turfgrass industry's need and justification for continuation
of the $490,000 appropriated in the fiscal year 2003 budget for the
full-time turfgrass scientist position within ARS. In addition, I
appreciate the consideration of an additional appropriation of
$5,400,000 for the first installment on the $32.4 million National
Turfgrass Research Initiative developed by ARS and the turfgrass
industry, with twelve new research scientist positions.

Justification of $55,000 Appropriation Request for Program Support.
Once again, NTEP and the turfgrass industry come to the
appropriations process to request continuation of the $55,000 basic
program support in the ARS budget for NTEP's activities at Beltsville.
We appreciate the Subcommittee's continuation of this amount as in
previous fiscal years, and hope that you will agree with us that this
request is justified for the ensuing fiscal year.
The National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP) is unique in that
it provides a working partnership that links the Federal Government,
turfgrass industry and land grant universities together in their common
interest of turfgrass cultivar development, improvement and evaluation.
The National Turfgrass Evaluation Program is the primary means by which
cultivated varieties of turfgrass are evaluated in this country. It
provides unbiased information on turfgrass cultivar adaptations,
disease and insect resistance and environmental stress tolerance. The
public and private sectors of the turfgrass industry use this
information to develop cultivar recommendations for home owners, sod
producers, sports turf and parks managers, golf course superintendents
and highway vegetation managers.
Our nation's awareness of safety is at an all-time high. Turfgrass
provides multiple benefits to society including child safety on
athletic fields, environmental protection of groundwater, reduction of
silt and other contaminants in runoff, green space in home lawns,
parks, golf courses, etc. With the advancements being made to
turfgrasses that require less pesticides, water and other inputs as
well as other efforts to improve integrated pest management programs,
recycling, etc., the USDA has a unique opportunity to take positive
action in support of the turfgrass industry. With a minuscule
investment of Department funds, in relative terms within USDA's budget,
a tremendous return can be gained for society and the turfgrass
industry.
While the vast majority of the USDA's funds have been and will
continue to be directed toward traditional ``food and fiber'' segments
of U.S. agriculture, it is important to note that turfgrasses (e.g.,
sod production) are defined as agriculture in the Farm Bill and by many
other departments and agencies. Further, it is estimated by the
Economic Research Service that the turfgrass industry, in all its
forms, is a $40 billion industry. It should also be noted that the
turfgrass industry is the fastest growing segment of U.S. agriculture,
while it receives essentially no Federal support. There are no subsidy
programs for turfgrass, nor are any desired.
For the past seventy years, the USDA's support for the turfgrass
industry has been modest at best. The turfgrass industry's rapid
growth, importance to our urban environments, and impact on our daily
lives warrant more commitment and support from USDA. Failing to support
the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program, would be a tremendous
oversight of a major opportunity. USDA's support of NTEP at the $55,000
level does not cover all costs. In fact, NTEP represents an ideal
partnership of the public and private sectors in terms of program cost
sharing. The NTEP relies most heavily on turfgrass industry (i.e.,
public sectors, end-users) support. However, it is essential that the
USDA maintain its modest financial support and work closely with NTEP.
The turfgrass industry relies heavily on NTEP for unbiased information.
Discounting this support will also eliminate a highly reliable and
credible level of objectivity that is associated with the NTEP program.

Justification of $490,000 Appropriation Request for the ARS Scientist
Position as well as $5,400,000 Appropriation Request for the
first installment on the National Turfgrass Research Initiative
NTEP and the turfgrass industry are requesting the Subcommittee's
support for $490,000 continuing funding for the full-time scientist
staff position at ARS, focusing on turfgrass research, that was
appropriated in the fiscal year 2003 budget. We also request that the
Subcommittee appropriate an additional $5,400,000 for the first
installment on the $32.4 million National Turfgrass Research
Initiative. This Initiative has been developed by USDA, ARS in
partnership with the turfgrass industry. We are asking for funding for
the most pressing research needs, which address water use/efficiency
and environmental issues.
Our society is becoming increasingly more urbanized. Currently,
turfgrasses impact more than 90 percent of all people in the United
States through exposure to home lawns, business landscapes, roadsides,
parks, or recreational turf on a daily basis. As more and more cropland
is converted to houses, office parks, shopping centers, etc., the
acreage of turfgrass is increasing exponentially. However, with the
increasing urbanization comes a greater demand on resources, such as
potable water. Also, with the general public experiencing heightened
awareness of the environment and its protection, use of inputs such as
fertilizer, pesticides and water on turfgrass areas is coming under
greater scrutiny. In some jurisdictions, use of these inputs will
either be banned or severely restricted for turfgrass use. In addition,
the urbanization of America is leading to an overuse of current
recreational facilities such as parks, athletic fields and golf
courses. New facilities are being considered or constructed, many on
abandoned sites such as landfills, industrial wastelands, gravel pits
or mine spoils. Turfgrasses in these areas will play an important role
in reclamation vegetation, recreational turf or both.
The USDA needs to initiate and maintain ongoing research on
turfgrass development and improvement for the following reasons:
The value of the turfgrass industry in the United States is $40
billion annually. There are an estimated 50,000,000 acres of turfgrass
in the United States Turfgrass is the number one or two agricultural
crop in value and acreage in many States (i.e. MD, PA, FL, NJ, NC).
As our society becomes and more urbanized, the acreage of turfgrass
will increase significantly. Consequently, State and local
municipalities will require the utilization of other water sources
(i.e. effluent, reclaimed, etc.), reduction of pesticide use and
elimination of nutrient runoff from turfgrass. However, demand on
recreational facilities will increase while these facilities, for
safety reasons, will still be required to provide safe, attractive
athletic fields, parks and grounds.
Private and university research programs are working to develop
improved turfgrasses, but they do not have the time nor resources to
identify completely new sources of beneficial genes in commonly used
species or the usefulness of potential new species. In addition, new
plant materials collected by these institutions most often are not
placed in the National Plant Germplasm System for use by all interested
parties. Additionally, long-term research to identify and transfer
desirable genes from other species (turfgrass or other crop species) is
not being undertaken by public and private interests. ARS scientists
working with turfgrass will enhance the ongoing research and
development currently underway within the public and private sectors of
the turfgrass industry.
Water management is a key component of healthy turf and has direct
impact on nutrient and pesticide losses into the environment. New and
improved technologies are needed to monitor turf stresses and to
schedule irrigation to achieve the desired turf quality. Increasing
demands and competition for potable water make it necessary to use
water more efficiently for turf irrigation. In addition, severe
droughts in the West, Southeast and Mid-Atlantic States over the last
several years have resulted in less water available and watering
restrictions. These drought situations have severely impacted the turf
industry as well as homeowners and young athletes. Technologies are
needed to more efficiently and uniformly apply irrigations to achieve
desired turf quality for the intended use as well as develop drought
tolerant grasses. Also, there is greater competition for potable water.
Therefore, to increase water availability for turf irrigation, waste
water (treated and untreated) from both animal and municipal sources as
well as from food processing plants must be utilized. Some of these
waste waters contain contaminants such as pathogens, heavy metals, and
organic compounds. consequently, movement and accumulation of these
contaminants in the atmosphere, soil profile, and ground water must be
determined.
USDA conducted significant turfgrass research from 1920-1988.
However, since 1988, no full-time scientist has been employed by USDA,
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) to conduct turfgrass research
specifically.
A new turfgrass research scientist position within USDA, ARS was
created by Congress in the fiscal year 2001 budget. Accordingly, in
January 2001, the turfgrass industry met with USDA, ARS officials to
discuss the position description, hiring process, facilities needed,
etc. for the new position. ARS welcomed the new position but felt
strongly that just one person working in turfgrass research would be
ineffective in addressing the needs and concerns of the industry.
Therefore, in January 2002, ARS held a customer workshop to gain
valuable input from turfgrass researchers, golf course superintendents,
sod producers, lawn care operators, athletic field managers and others
on the research needs of the turfgrass industry. As a result of the
workshop, ARS has developed, in conjunction with industry, a national
strategy to address the specific needs and concerns within the
turfgrass industry. The highlights of this strategy are below:
The turfgrass industry is very excited about this new proposal and
wholeheartedly supports the efforts of ARS. Since the customers at the
workshop identified turfgrass genetics/germplasm and water quality/use
as their top priority areas for ARS research, for fiscal year 2004, the
turfgrass industry requests that the following positions be established
within USDA, ARS:
--Water Use Efficiency/Use of Other Water Sources--three (3) research
scientist positions to develop improved irrigation technologies
and investigate the impacts of using recycled water for turf.
--Germplasm Collection, Enhancement and Preservation--three (3)
research scientist positions to identify germplasm tolerant of
drought and other stresses, move genes that confer drought and
stress tolerance to desirable turfgrasses.
--Environmental Aspects of Turf Management--three (3) research
scientist positions to investigate turfgrasses' ability to
impact pesticide and nutrient transport in soil and water.
--Pest Management Practices--three (3) research scientists to
investigate turfgrass pests and pest management practices to
reduce pesticide use and maximize efficiency of applications.
We propose that this research be conducted in conjunction with
appropriate university cooperators. For this ARS-University
partnership, we propose that funding be allocated such that ARS can
adequately conduct in-house research as well as in cooperation with
university partners. We are asking for $300,000 for each ARS scientist
position with an additional $150,000 attached to each position to be
distributed to university partners. We are also asking that the funding
be given to ARS and then distributed by ARS to those university
partners selected by ARS and industry representatives.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Breakdown:
ARS Scientist Positions ($300,000 ea. 12)......... $3,600,000
University Cooperative Research Agreements ($150,000 1,800,000
ea. 12) (administered by ARS)....................
---------------
Total Request..................................... 5,400,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In conclusion, on behalf of the National Turfgrass Evaluation
Program and the turfgrass industry across America, I respectfully
request that the Subcommittee continue the vital $55,000 appropriation
for the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP) as well as the
$490,000 appropriated in fiscal year 2003 for the new turfgrass
scientist position within the Agricultural Research Service. I also
request that the Subcommittee appropriate an additional $5,400,000 for
twelve new turfgrass scientist positions within ARS.
Thank you very much for your assistance and support.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Watershed Coalition

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Larry Smith from
Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, and I am pleased to represent the
National Watershed Coalition (NWC) as its Chairman. The National
Watershed Coalition is privileged to present this testimony in support
of the most beneficial water resource conservation programs ever
developed in the United States. The Coalition recognizes full well the
need to use our tax dollars wisely. That makes the work of this
Subcommittee very important. It also makes it imperative that the
federal programs we continue are those that provide real benefit to
society, and are not programs that would be nice to have if funds were
unlimited. We believe the Watershed Program (Public Law 83-566) and the
Flood Prevention Operations Program (Public Law 78-534) are examples of
those rare programs that address our nation's vital natural resources
which are critical to our very survival, do so in a way that provide
benefits in excess of costs, and are programs that serve as models for
the way all federal programs should work. The President's proposed
fiscal year 2004 budget would severely cut watershed program funding
from current levels, and is unacceptable to watershed project sponsors
throughout the United States.

General Watershed Program Observations
The watershed as the logical unit for dealing with natural resource
problems has long been recognized. Public Law 566 offers a complete
watershed management approach, and should have a prominent place in our
current federal policy emphasizing watersheds and total resource
management based planning. Proper watershed management improves water
quality. Why should the federal government be involved with these
watershed programs?
--They are programs whose objectives are the sustaining of our
nation's precious natural resources for generations to come.
--They are not federal, but federally assisted, locally sponsored and
owned. They do not represent the continued growth of the
federal government.
--They are locally initiated and driven. Decisions are made by people
affected, and respect private property rights.
--They share costs between the federal government and local people.
Local sponsors pay between 30-40 percent of the total costs of
Public Law 566 projects.
--They produce net benefits to society. The most recent program
evaluation demonstrated the actual ratio of benefits to costs
was approximately 2.2:1. The actual adjusted economic benefits
exceeded the planned benefits by 34 percent. How many other
federal programs do so well?
--They consider and enhance environmental values. Projects are
subject to the discipline of being planned following the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the federal
``Principles and Guidelines'' for land and water projects. That
is public scrutiny!
--They are flexible programs that can adapt to changing needs and
priorities. Objectives that can be addressed are flood damage
reduction, watershed protection (erosion and sediment control),
water quality improvement, rural water supply, water
conservation, fish and wildlife habitat improvement,
recreation, irrigation and water management, etc. That is
flexibility emphasizing multiple uses.
--They are programs that encourage all citizens to participate.
--They can address the needs of low income and minority communities.
--They are targeted to address the most serious resource problems.
--And best of all--they are programs the people like!
The National Watershed Coalition is concerned with the
Administration's minimal support for these watershed programs, and
trusts your deliberations will cause the outcome of the fiscal year
2004 appropriations process to enable this vital work to continue and
expand as we seek to preserve, protect and better manage our nation's
water and land resources. Every State in the United States has
benefited from the Small Watershed Program.

National Watershed Coalition USDA Water Resource Program Budget
recommendations
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
In order to continue this high priority work in partnership with
states and local governments, the Coalition recommends a fiscal year
2004 funding level of $190 million for Watersheds and Flood Prevention
Operations, Public Law 83-566 and Public Law 78-534. The current
unfunded federal commitment for this program is currently over $1.6
billion.
We recommend that $30 million of this amount be for Public Law 78-
534 projects. The administration proposes no funding for these
projects. For some years now, the federal budget has eliminated the
separate line items for the Public Law 534 and Public Law 566 watershed
projects, and just lumped a total figure under Public Law 566 with a
note that some amount ``may be available'' for Public Law 534 projects.
This is an entirely unsatisfactory way of doing business. Public Law
534 still exists in law; it has not been repealed. Many rural
communities depend upon its assistance. It should be funded as a
separate program. This tactic is unfair to both Public Law 566 and
Public Law 534. We ask that the Public Law 534 projects be funded at
$30,000,000.00, and that it be separate from Public Law 566. These are
two distinct authorities that should not be confused. The current
situation really penalizes both Public Law 534 and 566, as 534 has no
funds at the outset, and in order to provide a little something to the
Public Law 534 watershed projects, NRCS has to take money from the
Public Law 566 accounts which are already very underfunded. Please
restore funding for Public Law 534 watershed projects to $30 million in
fiscal year 2004.
The $190 million request represents the actual amount watershed
project sponsors across the country have indicated they can use now for
projects ready for installation. It is a real, community based,
documented need. The administrations proposal of $40 million would
actually cut funds for watershed operations by 65 percent from what was
available in fiscal year 2003.

Watershed Surveys and Planning
We recommend that watershed surveys and planning be funded at $35
million. Watershed sponsors and communities throughout the country have
indicated a need for $38 million for surveys and planning. The National
Watershed Coalition believes the $35 million amount is a reasonable
request when all national water resource priorities are considered. The
administrations proposal of $5 million would actually cut funds for
watershed planning by 55 percent from what was available fiscal year
2003.

Watershed Rehabilitation
We recommend $45 million be provided for structural rehabilitation
and replacement in fiscal year 2004, in accordance with Public Law 106-
472, the Small watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000, passed by
the Congress and signed into law on November 9th, 2000, and that
another $5 million be available for a thorough assessment of
rehabilitation needs. The condition of our nation's dams, and the need
for watershed structure rehabilitation, is a national priority. We are
very disappointed to see the Administration's proposed budget
apparently doesn't believe it is a national priority to protect the
lives of America's citizens. Congress has indicated it is a priority
with passage of Public Law 106-472. The 2002 Farm Bill would actually
have provided $90 million for this purpose in fiscal year 2004, if all
its provisions had been funded.
The issue of the current condition of those improvements
constructed over the last 50 years with these watershed programs is a
matter of great concern. Many of the 11,000 plus dams that NRCS
assisted sponsors build throughout the United States, no longer meet
current dam safety standards largely as a result of development, and
need to be upgraded to current standards. A USDA study published in
1991 estimated that in the next 10 years, $590 million would be needed
to protect the installed works. Of that amount, $100 million would come
from local sponsors as their operation and maintenance contributions.
NRCS also conducted a more recent survey, and in just 22 states, about
$540 million in rehabilitation needs were identified. We are
recommending $45 million in fiscal year 2004, and commend Congress for
their leadership in passing Public Law 106-472 and the 2002 Farm Bill.
Watershed project sponsors throughout the United States appreciate your
leadership on this vital issue. We now have the authorization, and need
the appropriations. If we don't start to pay attention to our rural
infrastructure needs, the ultimate cost to society will only increase,
and project benefits will be lost. This is a serious national issue.
Since most of these structures were constructed in the 1950's, 1960's,
and 1970's, and were originally designed with a 50-year life, it is
apparent we need to look at their current condition. If we do the
rehabilitation work to bring these older structures up to current
health and safety standards, they will continue to provide benefits far
into the future. We are dismayed that the Administration's budget only
provides $10 million for this work. That amount would actually cut
fiscal year 2003 rehabilitation funding by 65 percent which is
unacceptable to watershed sponsors, and is unsafe.

Watershed Research and Development
There is a research and development (R&D) need as we get the
structural rehabilitation process underway. In USDA, that work is
undertaken by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). That need is
estimated at $3.0 million, and we ask that it be included in the ARS
budget. It would be used for evaluation of upstream and downstream
changes to the stream channel systems in cases of decommissioning,
evaluation of the water quality impact of stored sediment releases, and
the evaluation of impacts of the loss of flood protection, among other
things. In addition, we ask that ARS be provided $10 million in fiscal
year 2004 for basic watershed research. This is the amount needed to
allow ARS to get back on track collecting needed basic watershed
information. That activity has been neglected in recent years because
of the lack of funding.

Summary
All people should understand these federal funds are only a part of
the total that is committed to this vital national, conservation
purpose. The local project sponsors in these ``federally assisted''
endeavors also have a tremendous investment. Congress increasingly
talks of wanting to fund those investments in our nation's
infrastructure that will sustain us in the future. Yet past budgets
have regularly cut funding for the best of these programs. This makes
absolutely no sense! We can't seem to invest and re-invest in our vital
watershed infrastructure. That is simply unconscionable. Isn't water
quality and watershed management a national priority? We believe it is.
Once again we are disappointed with what appears to us to be a lack
of Administration commitment for these very beneficial conservation
programs. The Administration needs to recognize watershed natural
resources conservation as a high national priority, as you do. It's
only common sense.
The Coalition appreciates the opportunity to offer these comments
regarding fiscal year 2004 funding for the water resource programs
administered by USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
With the ``downsizing'' the NRCS has experienced, we would be remiss if
we did not again express some concern as to their ability to provide
adequate technical support in these watershed program areas. NRCS
technical staff has been significantly reduced and budget constraints
have not allowed that expertise to be replaced. Traditional fields of
engineering and economics are but two examples. We see many states
where NRCS capability to support their responsibilities is seriously
diminished. This is a disturbing trend that needs to be halted, and we
are not convinced that using ``Technical Service Providers'' from the
private sector is the answer. This downsizing has a very serious effect
on state and local conservation programs. Local Watershed and
Conservation Districts and the NRCS combine to make a very effective
delivery system for providing the technical assistance to local
people--farmers, ranchers and rural communities--in applying needed
conservation practices. But that delivery system is currently very
strained! Many states and local units of government also have
complementary programs that provide financial assistance to land owners
and operators for installing measures that reduce erosion, improve
water quality, and maintain environmental quality. The NRCS provides,
through agreement with the USDA Secretary of Agriculture, ``on the
land'' technical assistance for applying these measures. The delivery
system currently is in place, and by downsizing NRCS, we are eroding
the most effective and efficient coordinated means of working with
local people to solve environmental problems that has ever been
developed. Our system and its ability to produce food and fiber is the
envy of the entire world. In our view, these programs are the most
important in terms of national priorities.
The Coalition pledges its full support to you as you continue your
most important work. Our Executive Director, Mr. John W. Peterson, who
has over 40 years experience in natural resource watershed
conservation, is located in the Washington, DC area, and would be
pleased to serve as a resource as needed. John's address is 9304 Lundy
Court, Burke, VA 22015-3431, phone 703-455-6886 or 4387, Fax; 703-455-
6888, email; [email protected].
Thank you for allowing the National Watershed Coalition (NWC) this
opportunity.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Rural Housing Coalition

Mr. Chairman and members of the House Subcommittee on Agriculture,
my name is Robert Rapoza and I wish to testify on behalf of the
National Rural Housing Coalition.
I wish thank you for the Subcommittee's support of the Rural
Development programs of the United States Department of Agriculture and
to urge you to support an increase in its budget for fiscal year 2004.
As you may know, the National Rural Housing Coalition (the
Coalition) has been a national voice for rural low-income housing and
community development programs since 1969. Through direct advocacy and
policy research, the Coalition has worked with Congress and the
Department of Agriculture to design new programs and improve existing
programs serving the rural poor. The Coalition also promotes a non-
profit delivery system for these programs, encouraging support for
rural community assistance programs, farm labor housing grants, self-
help housing grants, and rural capacity building funding.
The Coalition is comprised of approximately 300 members nationwide.
We hope to work with you to assure that the voices of rural America are
heard and its needs met. Our concerns are focused on rural housing and
rural water and sewer systems.

THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE RURAL HOUSING

A disproportionate amount of the nation's substandard housing is in
rural areas. Rural households are poorer than urban households, pay
more of their income for housing that their urban counterparts, and are
less likely to receive government-assisted mortgages. They also have
limited access to mortgage credit and the secondary mortgage market,
making them prime targets for predatory lending. Rural America needs
programs that focus on the issues facing it. The Rural Housing Service
of Rural Development provides many of these needed programs.
According to the 2000 Census, there are 106 million housing units
in the United States. Of that, 23 million, or 23 percent, are located
in non-metro areas. Many non-metro households lack the income for
affordable housing. The 2000 Census reveals that 7.8 million of the
non-metro population is poor, 5.5 million, or one-quarter of the non-
metro population, face cost overburden, and 1.6 million of non-metro
housing units are either moderately or severely substandard. According
to the USDA Economic Research Service, 4 million, or 17 percent of the
households in non-metro areas are classified as being in housing
poverty. Households are defined as being in housing poverty when their
housing has at least one of four important indicators of housing
disadvantage:
--Economic need--housing costs over 50 percent of household income;
--Inadequate quality--physical quality defined as moderately or
severely inadequate using the HUD measure based on 26
indicators of physical problems;
--Crowding--more household members than rooms; and
--Neighborhood quality--perception of poor quality in at least 2 out
of 4 neighborhood conditions (crime, noise, inadequate public
services, and litter/deteriorating housing).
Renters in rural areas are the worst housed individuals and
families in the country. Thirty-three percent of rural renters are
cost-burdened, paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing
costs. Almost one million rural renter households suffer from multiple
housing problems, 60 percent of whom pay more than 70 percent of their
income for housing. The Section 515 rural rental housing loan program
at USDA serves low and very-low income families with safe affordable
housing.
Although issues around rental housing are of vital concern,
homeownership is the principal form of housing in rural America.
However, there are a number of obstacles to improving homeownership in
rural areas including high rates of poverty and poor quality of
housing. According to a 1999 Economic Research Service report, the
poverty rate in rural America was 15.9 percent, compared to 13.2
percent in urban areas.
Rural residents also have limited access to mortgage credit. The
consolidation of the banking industry that accelerated throughout the
1990s has had a significant impact on rural communities. Mergers among
lending institutions have replaced local community lenders with large
centralized institutions located in urban areas. Aside from shifting
the locus of loan making, this has resulted in the diminishment of a
competitive environment that, in the past, encouraged rural lenders to
offer terms and conditions that were attractive to borrowers.
Because of the gap left by traditional lenders, rural households
are often prime targets for predatory lenders. Predatory lending
practices include excessive fees, prepayment penalties, and loan
flipping into high cost subprime loans. Rural America depends upon the
affordable loans through USDA's Section 502 single family direct loan
program for homeownership.

USDA'S RURAL HOUSING SERVICE

I would like to begin with the rental housing program.
Section 515 rental housing program
Although we often talk about the surge in homeownership and all of
its benefits, not all us are or are prepared to be homeowners. USDA's
Rural Housing Service Section 515 rural rental housing program is
invaluable to low-income residents in rural areas. The portfolio
contains 450,000 rented apartments in Section 515 developments. The
delinquency rate is a low 1.6 percent. The average tenant income is
$7,900, which is equal to only 30 percent of the nation's rural median
household income. More than half of the tenants are elderly or disabled
and one-quarter are minority.
Federal policy faces two challenges regarding rural rental housing.
The first is to increase the production of affordable rental housing
units in rural communities. The second is to maintain the existing
stock of Section 515 units.
This year, the President's budget cut Section 515 to $71 million
and limited it to repair, rehabilitation, and preservation. If the
fiscal year 2004 budget request for Section 515 is approved, it will be
the first time in more than 30 years that the Federal Government
provides no new rental units for rural America
Section 521 rental assistance is used in conjunction with Section
515 to help families who cannot afford even their reduced rent. In
recent years, mostly in response to an escalating number of expiring
contracts, appropriations for rental assistance have gone up. Despite
the fact that the current appropriations stand at $701 million (fiscal
year 2002), the funds are insufficient. Although about 50 percent of
the 450,000 Section 515 households receive rental assistance, almost
90,000 Section 515 households who need assistance do not receive it.
The need for rental assistance is projected to increase to $937 million
by 2006.
Prepayment of 515 properties is a real threat to two-thirds of the
portfolio over the next 7 years. Prepayment often means the units are
lost for low-income residents. In 1987, Congress enacted legislation
restricting prepayment, and providing financial incentives to owners to
stay in the program. However, Section 515 funding has fallen off
dramatically, and stands at $114 million, its lowest level in 25 years.
This allows little money to provide incentives and other resources for
preservation.
The demand for incentives is estimated at approximately $100
million for equity loans alone. This includes $11 million in approved,
but un-funded requests some of that date back 3 to 4 years. Spending
for Section 515 rental subsidized housing has been cut by 73 percent
since 1994. And rural rental housing unit production by the Federal
Government has been reduced by 88 percent since 1990.
For fiscal year 2004, we recommend a total of $250 million for
section 515. With these funds, we proposed that $100 million be used
for basic maintenance and preservation and $150 million for loans for
new construction. In addition we recommend an increase of $50 million
for rural rental assistance that will be used in conjunction with
section 515 and farm labor housing, described later.

Section 502 single family direct loan program
To qualify for the direct loan program, borrowers must have very
low or low incomes but be able to afford mortgage payments. Also,
applicants must be unable to obtain credit elsewhere, yet have
reasonable credit histories. The average income of households assisted
under Section 502 is $18,500. About 9 percent of households have annual
incomes of less than $10,000. Since its inception, Section 502 has
provided loans to almost two million families.
In recent years, the major trend in rural housing has been to
guarantee home ownership loans. The fiscal year 2003 level for
guarantees is approximately $4 billion. This program serves families
with incomes at 125 percent of median, substantially higher than that
of direct loans.
Under Section 502 home ownership, the current loan level totals
$1.044 billion. This will provide subsidized, direct loan financing for
about 15,000 units. Under this program, families receive a subsidized
loan for a period of 33 years. The average income of households
assisted under Section 502 is $18,500. About 3 percent of households
have annual incomes of less than $10,000. Since its inception, Section
502 has provided loans to almost two million families.
There is unprecedented demand for section 502 direct loans totaling
several billion dollars and exceeding the budget request. The fiscal
year 2004 budget request for Section 502 direct loans is $1.366
billion; the largest request is several years.
The additional funds are targeted to improve minority home
ownership. Under the fiscal year 2004 budget, the cost per unit to
finance housing is less than $10,000. It is important to note that the
Administration proposes to actually reduce spending on Section 502, but
a revised subsidy rate and lower interest rates allow resources to be
stretched. While we would have preferred additional lending in section
502 based on the fiscal year 2003 budget authority level, we applaud
the focus on minority home ownership in the budget request.

Non-Profit Organizations
With dramatic program reductions and continued strength in the
nation's real estate market, the private sector delivery system is no
longer dominant as it was when funding levels were higher, and in many
rural communities does not even exist. In some rural areas, non-profits
have picked up the slack and pursued a multiple funding strategy.
Skilled local organizations meld Federal, State, local and private
resources together to provide affordable financing packages to low-
income families. But there is not a dedicated source of Federal support
to promote a non-profit delivery system for rural housing.
As one way to improve its programs, USDA has expanded its
cooperation with non-profit housing and community development
organizations. Two successful programs are Mutual and Self-Help Housing
and the Rural Community Development Initiative.
Under Mutual and Self-Help Housing, with the assistance of local
housing agencies, groups of families eligible for Section 502 loans
perform approximately 65 percent of the construction labor on each
other's homes under qualified supervision. This program, which has
received growing support because of its proven model, has existed since
1961. The average number of homes built each year over the past 3 years
has been approximately 1,500. For fiscal year 2004, we recommend a
total of $35 million for self-help housing. This is the same as fiscal
year 2004.
The Rural Community Development Initiative (RCDI) program enhances
the capacity of rural organizations to develop and manage low-income
housing, community facilities, and economic development projects. These
funds are designated to provide technical support, enhance staffing
capacity, and provide pre-development assistance--including site
acquisition and development. RCDI provides rural community development
organizations with some of the resources necessary to plan, develop,
and manage community development projects. Using dollar-for-dollar
matching funds and technical assistance from 19 intermediary
organizations, some $12 million in capacity building funds were
distributed to 240 communities. There is a tremendous demand for
capacity building funding. In the fiscal year 2000 funding round,
USDA's Rural Housing Service received some $80 million in applications
for $6 million in appropriated funds. This valuable program is also at
risk in the budget request this year--it has been eliminated. For
fiscal year 2004, we recommend $6 million for the Rural Community
Development Initiative to continue level funding for fiscal year 2002.

Section 514 loan and Section 516 grant farm labor housing programs
Two additional rental housing programs specifically address the
needs of farm laborers. Migrant and seasonal farmworkers are some of
the nation's most poorly housed populations. The last documented
national study indicated a shortage of some 800,000 units of affordable
housing for farmworkers.
Farmworker households are also some of the least assisted
households in the nation. Some 52 percent of farmworker households'
incomes are below the poverty threshold, four times the national
household poverty rate, and 75 percent of migrant farmworkers have
incomes below the poverty line. Yet little more than 20 percent of
farmworker households receive public assistance; most commonly food
stamps, rarely public or subsidized housing.
There are only two Federal housing programs that specifically
target farmworkers and their housing needs: Sections 514 and 516 of the
Housing Act of 1949 (as amended). Borrowers and grantees under Rural
Housing Service Sections 514 and 516 receive financing to develop
housing for farmworkers. Section 514 authorizes the Rural Housing
Service to make loans with terms of up to 33 years and interest rates
as low as 1 percent. Section 516 authorizes RHS to provide grant
funding when the applicant will provide at least 10 percent of the
total development cost from its own resources or through a 514 loan.
Non-profit housing organizations and public bodies use the loan and
grant funds, along with RHS rural rental assistance, to provide units
affordable to eligible farmworkers. These funds are used to plan and
develop housing and related facilities for migrant and seasonal
farmworkers. Current funding for Sections 514/516 totals $37 million in
program authority. This amount provides about 700 units of housing. The
estimated need is two to three times the appropriated level.
The budget request for section 514/516 is $35 million. We applaud
the slow, but steady progress of the Committee in increasing funding
for this very important program. We recommend that funding for
farmworker housing grants and loans be increased to $100 million in
budget authority for fiscal year 2004. We ask that these funds be
equally divided between loans and grants authorized under sections 514
and 516. This will result in approximately $150 million in financing
for much needed farmworker housing.

THE NEED FOR RURAL WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS

Hundreds of rural communities nationwide do not have access to
clean drinking water and safe waste disposal systems. A 1995 USDA needs
assessment of rural areas showed that more than one million households
had no indoor plumbing, and 2.4 million households had critical
drinking water needs. In its 1997 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs
Survey, the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that over the
next 20 years, water systems serving communities of less than 10,000
people will require $37.2 billion in funding for water systems
improvements and upgrades. And regarding wastewater, a 1996 EPA Survey
demonstrated that small communities with up to 10,000 residents will
need 21,000 wastewater treatment facilities by 2016 at a cost of
approximately $14 billion. According to EPA's numbers, approximately
$51.2 billion will be needed to address the basic water and wastewater
needs of small communities.
Many projects that the Rural Utilities Service funds are under
consent order from the state EPA office for immediate action. The
problems that the agency deals with range from communities and systems
that are out of compliance with health and pollution standards, to
communities without sewer systems where raw sewage runs in ditches
after a heavy rainfall. Because so much time and money are spent on
critical needs, the state offices spend less time on prevention. The
programs and communities do not have enough resources to address issues
before they become larger problems.
The issue of affordability moves to the forefront with waste
disposal systems, which are generally more expensive than water
systems. Waste systems naturally succeed water systems--with central
water comes indoor plumbing, washing machines, dishwashers, etc., all
of which eventually require an efficient wastewater disposal system.
Low-income communities often already pay as much as they can afford for
water service alone and are unable to manage the combined user fees for
water and waste. According to EPA data, ratepayers of small rural
systems are charged up to four times as much per household as
ratepayers of larger systems. In some extreme situations, some
households are being forced out of homeownership because they cannot
afford rising user costs.
As I mentioned earlier, rural communities have limited access to
much-needed debt and equity capital, and small water and wastewater
systems lack the economies of scale needed to reduce costs on their
own. In order for communities to cut back on project costs and have
affordable rates, operation and maintenance are typically
underestimated in the budgets for many new systems. This often results
in limited or no capital improvement accounts for future upgrades and
expansions needed for community development including stabilization of
local small business, affordable housing development, and other needed
industrial development.

USDA'S RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE

USDA's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is the primary Federal force
in rural water and waste development, providing loans and grants to
low-income communities in rural areas. The agency assists low-income
rural communities that would not otherwise be able to afford such
services. Approximately one-fifth of the communities served live below
the national poverty line.
In providing these important services, the program also protects
public health and promotes community stabilization and development.
Aging municipal sewage systems alone are responsible for 40,000
overflows of raw sewage each year. The overflows cause health hazards
including gastrointestinal problems and nausea, as well as long-term
damage to the environment. Businesses and industries are unable or
reluctant to locate in areas without functioning water and sewer
systems. But with the assistance of RUS, communities are able to have
the services they need so that their health and economies may benefit.
Through Federal and State initiatives, RUS is working to confront
the challenges faced by rural communities. With increasingly restricted
time and money, state offices are using other resources such as
leveraged funds and technical assistance from the Rural Community
Assistance Program (RCAP). Funds are being leveraged through HUD's
Community Development Block Grant program and the EPA's State Revolving
Loan Funds, as well as some private lenders. Through the RCAP technical
assistance program, more than 2,000 communities and over 1.6 million
households in 49 states have received assistance to identify solutions
to water problems, improve and protect water quality, and construct and
operate facilities. The RCAP program has proven to be an effective and
efficient way of ensuring that small rural communities receive the
information, technical assistance, and training needed to provide for
the water and waste disposal needs of their residents.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we look to you for
continued support of the efforts of Rural Development. These programs
are vital to the survival of our small communities nationwide. They
address the most basic needs of affordable housing and clean water that
still exist all over the country.
We appreciate your past support and your attention to this matter.
______

Prepared Statement of The Navajo Nation

INTRODUCTION

My name is Arvin S. Trujillo. I serve as Executive Director for the
Division of Natural Resources of the Navajo Nation, America's largest
Indian tribe. On behalf of President Joe Shirley, Jr., Vice-President
Frank Dayish, Jr. and the Navajo people, I appreciate the opportunity
to submit for the hearing record this Statement setting forth the
Navajo Nation's recommendations and requests regarding fiscal year 2004
appropriations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (``USDA'').
A participant in Congressional proceedings leading to enactment of
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (``Farm Bill''), the
Navajo Nation strongly urges appropriations up to full authorized
levels for many new, or expanded, Farm Bill programs that hold
significant promise for at last addressing the staggering rural
development deficit confronting the Navajo Nation. In fact, the
Shirley-Dayish Administration, inaugurated this past January, has made
implementation of Farm Bill programs on the Navajo Nation one of its
top priorities over the next 4 years. Toward that end, the Navajo
Nation looks forward to working with this Subcommittee and the full
Committee, as well as the USDA, to improve dramatically participation
by the historically-underserved Navajo people in USDA /Farm Bill
programs that are extraordinarily well-suited to addressing substantial
conservation, rural development, education and energy needs.

BACKGROUND

The Navajo Nation--with a land area covering almost 18 million
acres--comprises one-third of all Indian lands in the lower 48 States,
and is larger than the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland,
Massachusetts and Rhode Island combined. Unlike those States, however,
the Navajo Nation suffers from enormous deficits in all areas critical
to prosperous rural livelihoods.
The unemployment rate on the Navajo Nation ranges seasonally from
36 percent to 50 percent. Per capita income averages $6,123 (less than
one-third of that in surrounding States), and 56 percent of Navajo
people live below the poverty level. Massive infrastructure
deficiencies continue to hamstring Navajo leaders' efforts to promote
rural development and economic self-sufficiency. Though the Navajo
Nation is slightly larger than West Virginia, our approximately 2,000
miles of paved roads equate to barely 11 percent of West Virginia's
18,000+ miles. Basic ``necessities'' of life, taken for granted
elsewhere in the United States, are sorely lacking in the Navajo
Nation. In fact, approximately 17,500 occupied structures on the Navajo
Nation are presently without electric power--a circumstance that simply
defies belief in 21st Century America!

FISCAL YEAR 2004 APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUESTS

Against this background, the Navajo Nation urges the Subcommittee
Members to provide the leadership and direction necessary to cause USDA
increasingly to target scarce resources toward populations/areas that
combine a compelling need for USDA's programs with a historical lack of
access to, or participation in, those programs (in relation to other
populations/areas). In other words, USDA resources and expertise should
be redirected from locations (many of which have become suburban rather
than rural) that have now realized the purposes of USDA programs to
those locations--such as the Navajo Nation--that have benefited
comparatively little from the resources and expertise that USDA has to
offer.
Among the Navajo Nation's overall appropriations recommendations,
within which such targeting of resources should occur (including the
specific requests identified), are the following:

CONSERVATION

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (``EQIP'').--The Natural
Resources Conservation Service (``NRCS'') has worked diligently in
outreach to the Navajo Nation to attempt to expand EQIP structural
practices, but there remains enormous untapped potential for
installation of measures to conserve scarce water resources and eroding
cropland and rangeland. In that regard, the Navajo Nation recently
filed comments, in the NRCS's proposed rulemaking regarding Farm Bill-
related modifications to EQIP, urging revisions to enhance Navajo
farmer/rancher participation. Funding of EQIP at the full authorized
amount is recommended.
Ground and Surface Water Conservation.--The Farm Bill established
this new EQIP-related initiative, in part, to help producers ``improve
irrigation systems . . . [and] enhance irrigation efficiencies,'' as
well as to ``mitigate the effects of drought.'' This initiative offers
opportunities to help reverse significant long-term problems that have
plagued Navajo farmers--crumbling irrigation systems, installed in the
1950's, that presently irrigate less than 30 percent of the farmland
acreage originally serviced thereby, and a devastating drought that has
adversely impacted the Navajo people for approximately 3 years. In
written comment to the NRCS, the Navajo Nation has urged that any new
rules/procedures take account of the special circumstances existing on
tribal lands so that Navajo farmers can fully take advantage of these
much-needed conservation incentives. Fully authorized funding of $60
million should be provided, with emphasis on cost-share and incentive
payments (rather than loan programs) for targeted areas with limited
resources and substantial unmet needs.
The Navajo Nation specifically requests that $350,000 of funding
hereunder be allocated to the Ganado Irrigation Water Conservation
Project, a model project that will bring water from Ganado Reservoir to
640 acres of land, thereby allowing 63 Navajo land permit holders to
return those lands to farming notwithstanding ongoing extreme drought
conditions. The Project is integral to sustaining traditional Navajo
crops and food products, generating revenue, and increasing employment
in Apache County, Arizona. The first phase of construction was
completed in the summer of 2002 in a joint effort by the Ganado Water
Users Association of the Navajo Nation, NRCS, the Bureau of Reclamation
and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The requested funding would be for
the final step to completion, including enhancing irrigation efficiency
through the installation of plastic lining for irrigation piping.
Watershed Planning and Operations, Emergency Watershed Protection,
and Small Water-shed Rehabilitation.--The importance of fully
appropriated, and fully implemented, USDA/NRCS watershed planning,
operations and rehabilitation programs for the Navajo Nation cannot be
overstated. Soil and water management difficulties, not to mention
salt-laden runoff to the Colorado River System, are longstanding
problems that demand a coordinated, comprehensive, watershed-based
strategy and solutions utilizing the NRCS's substantial expertise.
Regrettably, the Administration's Budget proposes a substantial decline
in funding. Rather than eliminating these very worthwhile programs,
funding should instead be increased so that areas, such as the Navajo
Nation, which have not fully benefited in the past can now partake of
the substantial potential of these programs. In particular, sufficient
funding should be allocated to allow for reestablishment of an NRCS
watershed planning team on the Navajo Nation.
In addition, the Navajo Nation requests that $700,000 of technical
assistance funding be allocated to the NRCS specifically to allow for
development and preparation of the required follow-up documentation
necessary to move ahead with two existing plans of importance to the
Navajo Nation: (1) the Canyon del Muerto Natural Resource Plan, and (2)
the Moenkopi--Tuba City Plan. Such targeted technical assistance
funding would be utilized for preparation of small watershed plans and
environmental assessments in furtherance of the much-needed watershed-
related initiatives for both areas.
Conservation Security Program.--The Navajo Nation supports the
program goals to implement important conservation measures on working
lands, including ``land under the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe.'' In
fact, in recently-filed comments with the USDA regarding implementation
of this new program, the Navajo Nation recommended policies to
facilitate Navajo participation therein. The Budget appears to have
significantly underfunded this new program, and the Navajo Nation urges
increased funding thereof.
Resource Conservation and Development Program.--The Navajo Nation
supports the continuation and expansion of funding for this beneficial
program.
Conservation Program Incentives.--Section 2004 of the Farm Bill
added Section 1244 to the Food Security Act of 1985 to provide that
``[i]n carrying out any conservation program . . . the Secretary may
provide to . . . Indian tribes . . . incentives to participate in the
conservation program to--(1) foster new farming and ranching
opportunities; and (2) enhance environmental stewardship over the long
term.'' The Navajo Nation, which exercises governmental authority over
the vast lands (primarily tribal and trust lands) under its
jurisdiction, urges the Subcommittee to direct the Secretary to
implement this new provision expeditiously, and to provide funding
therefor.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Water and Waste Disposal Grant Programs
A. There are enormous needs on the Navajo Nation for grants for the
``development, storage, treatment, purification or distribution of
water . . . in rural areas'' (7 U.S.C. Sec. 1926(a)(2)); authorized
applicants under this program for ``Water and Waste Facility Loans and
Grants'' include Indian tribes. However, the Budget proposes a very
significant cutback in grant funding, despite the fact that numerous
rural areas, such as the Navajo Nation, have yet to realize equitably
the benefits of this critical program. Given the Navajo Nation's huge
infrastructure deficiencies, the Navajo Nation recommends a grant
program level of $590 million, with directions from the Committee that
such grant funding/assistance be targeted to areas with substantial
need and limited past participation.
B. Moreover, under the program for ``Water and Waste Facility Loans
and Grants to Alleviate Health Risks'' (7 U.S.C. Sec. 1926c), the
``Secretary shall make . . . grants to . . . Indian tribes . . . to
provide for the conservation, development, use, and control of water
(including the extension or improvement of existing water supply
systems) . . .'' (7 U.S.C. Sec. 1926c(a)(1)). In reauthorizing these
provisions in Section 6010 of the Farm Bill, Congress provided for
additional funding of $20 million for each fiscal year specifically
``for grants under this section to benefit Indian tribes.'' The
Subcommittee should make good on this commitment to the health and
welfare of Indian country, and should fully appropriate this new grant
authorization.
C. The Navajo Nation (and other areas of the desert southwest) have
been severely impacted by long-term drought. Under the ``Emergency
Community Water Assistance Grant Program,'' the USDA ``shall provide
grants . . . to assist the residents of rural areas and small
communities to secure adequate quantities of safe water . . . after a
significant decline in the quantity or quality of water available . . .
'' (7 U.S.C. Sec. 1926a(a)). Rather than eliminating funding (or
appropriating only for pending applications), the Subcommittee (and the
USDA) should recognize that such an emergency already exists in the
Navajo Nation. Monies should be appropriated now and targeted to areas
such as the Navajo Nation that have been devastated by drought and
which require assistance to provide ample, safe water to rural
residents.
In particular, the Navajo Nation Drought Contingency Plan has
identified more than 70 public water systems at high risk due to the
ongoing drought. Deficiencies at the following public water systems in
Arizona and New Mexico can be rectified in a timely fashion, and the
corresponding health risks and water shortage emergencies alleviated,
if the following targeted appropriations are provided from one or a
combination of the above-identified three grant funding authorizations:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona:
Cameron--Grey Mountain........ water source; $900,000
storage.
Fort Defiance Chapter......... replacement well; 250,000
storage.
Teec Nos Pos chapter.......... water source........ 470,000
Tuba City Chapter............. water source; 380,000
storage.
-------------------------------------
Total....................... .................... 2,000,000
=====================================
New Mexico:
Baca/Haystack Chapter......... water source; 800,000
storage.
Spencer Valley--Manuelito conveyance line..... 90,000
Chapter.
Torreon Chapter............... water source........ 450,000
-------------------------------------
Total....................... .................... 1,340,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moreover, the Navajo Nation requests funding of $4 million for
construction of the Navajo Mountain Public Water System to alleviate
public health and safety issues at Navajo Mountain, Utah. The present
water system, which is dependent on springs that are unreliable during
dry periods, is inadequate to provide for the needs of the community
and its schools. Consequently, last year the Navajo Nation had to
resort to hauling water more than 40 miles to provide drinking water
for the community. This crisis resulted in the closing of the schools
during the summer months. Repeated efforts by the Indian Health Service
to develop wells in the area have not been successful. In March 2000,
the Bureau of Reclamation completed a feasibility study for the Navajo
Mountain Public Water System, resulting in a design and cost estimate
for a long-term solution to the Navajo Mountain water supply crisis.
The proposed project would cost approximately $6 million; programmatic
funding already committed through the U.S. EPA and BIA totals $2
million. The Navajo Nation requests through USDA the remaining $4
million--under any one or a combination of the above-identified three
grant funding authorizations--necessary to construct this urgently-
needed project.
Rural Strategic Investment Program.--One of the most disinvested
areas of the United States, the Navajo Nation has long been a proponent
of integrated, multidisciplinary rural planning and development, but
has lacked adequate funding and the commitment of USDA resources and
expertise necessary to succeed in such effort. Accordingly, the Navajo
Nation supports implementation of this new program (added to the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act by Farm Bill Section 6030)
that can facilitate regional rural strategic investment plans through
planning and innovation grants. The Subcommittee should reject the
Budget's proposal to block mandatory funding authorized under the Farm
Bill, and should instead fully appropriate authorized amounts for
planning/innovation grants thereunder.
Rural Development Grant Programs.--The Navajo Nation supports full
funding of programs for Rural Business Enterprise Grants (Farm Bill
Section 6014), Rural Business Opportunity Grants (Farm Bill Section
6003), and Rural Cooperative Development Grants (Farm Bill Section
6015). These programs offer substantial opportunities for Indian
country, and the Navajo Nation hopes to work closely with USDA to
increase Navajo participation therein. The Budget limitations on such
programs should be rejected.
Tribal College Essential Community Facilities.--Farm Bill Section
6008 amended the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act by adding
a new authorization of $10 million annually for ``grants to tribal
colleges and universities . . . to provide the Federal share of the
cost of developing specific tribal college or university essential
community facilities in rural areas.'' Among America's land grant
institutions, none have greater need for increased Federal financial
assistance for the development of infrastructure/facilities than the
tribal colleges (i.e., the so-called 1994 Institutions). This new
authorization should be fully funded.
Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development Grants.--This
program (Farm Bill Section 6401) offers exciting opportunities to
several ventures and existing/planned cooperatives on the Navajo
Nation. The budgeted funding is woefully inadequate, and the Navajo
Nation recommends appropriations that can help jump-start this
important program.
Rural Firefighters and Emergency Personnel.--Given the much-needed
focus on homeland security, not to mention its responsibility for 18
million acres under its jurisdiction, the Navajo Nation urges full
funding for this helpful authorization at Farm Bill Section 6405.

RESEARCH/EDUCATION/EXTENSION

Tribal Colleges Classroom Instruction Grants.--Farm Bill Section
7201(a) increased these annual grants to each 1994 Institution from
$50,000 to $100,000, but the Budget proposes only $73,000 per tribal
college. This position is entirely unacceptable--not only because of
the well-documented need for a substantial input of resources to the
tribal colleges, but also in relation to the continuing large funding
allocations directed to the 1862 and 1890 Institutions. The Budget is
inapposite to the intent underlying the Equity in Educational Land-
Grant Status Act of 1994, and should not be accepted; the Farm Bill's
Congressional directive to raise these annual grants to $100,000 should
be heeded by the Subcommittee.
Other 1994 Institutions Funding Authorizations.--Unfortunately,
since 1994, the commitment to fund tribal colleges has not lived up to
the ``land grant'' status bestowed. Appropriations must be targeted
where they are most needed. Consequently, the Navajo Nation supports
very dramatic increases for the Native American Endowment Fund, and for
the authorizations for 1994 Institutions institutional capacity
building grants and research grants (see 7 U.S.C. Sec. 301 note) and
agricultural extension grants (see 7 U.S.C. Sec. 343(b)(3)). A
concerted Federal/tribal effort is required to help bring tribal
colleges to a level playing field--as they deserve to be--with other
land grant and higher education institutions.
Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers.--While Farm Bill
Section 10707 increased from $10 million to $25 million annual
authorized funding for this outreach and assistance program that is
ideally suited for the Navajo Nation, the Budget proposes just $4
million. The Navajo Nation urges the Subcommittee, through its
appropriations decisions, to direct the USDA finally to implement this
program in a meaningful way reflecting Congressional intent.

ENERGY

Renewable Energy (Section 9006).--The Navajo Nation, which has
recently announced its comprehensive energy policy, is firmly committed
to the development of renewable energy. Indeed, the Navajo Nation
submitted written comments to the USDA supporting expeditious
implementation of Farm Bill Section 9006 to provide, in part, for
grants to farmers, ranchers and rural small businesses to purchase
renewable energy systems. The Budget recommends no funding; the
Subcommittee should reject that position and provide adequate funding
for meaningful implementation of this program.
Renewable Energy (Section 9005).--Similarly, the Navajo Nation
recommends increased funding for this program, established under Farm
Bill Section 9005, that would authorize grants to ``an Indian tribe''
to ``assist farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses in becoming
more energy efficient and in using renewable energy technology and
resources.'' Such grants match up well with objectives of the Navajo
Nation's comprehensive energy policy, and--if provided in meaningful
amounts--could assist greatly in the implementation thereof.
As the new Shirley--Dayish Administration continues to establish
its priorities and objectives, we will keep the Subcommittee apprised
of additional specific opportunities--within these and other USDA/Farm
Bill programs--where the Subcommittee's leadership can help us to
improve the lives and rural livelihoods of the Navajo people. We
appreciate your consideration of our recommendations and requests.
______

Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission

Summary
This Statement is submitted in support of appropriations for the
Department of Agriculture's Colorado River Basin salinity control
program. The salinity control program has not been funded in recent
years at the level necessary to control salinity with respect to water
quality standards. Also, inadequate funding of the salinity control
program negatively impacts the quality of water delivered to Mexico
pursuant to Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water
Commission. Funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP), from which the Department of Agriculture funds the salinity
program, has been insufficient to implement needed salinity control
measures. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (FSRIA) of 2002
authorized a funding level of $1 billion for EQIP in fiscal year 2004.
I urge the Subcommittee to support funding from Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) of $1 billion to be appropriated for EQIP. I request
that the Subcommittee designate 2.5 percent of the EQIP appropriation,
but at least $17.5 million, for the Colorado River Basin salinity
control program. I request that adequate funds be appropriated for
technical assistance and education activities directed to salinity
control program participants.

Statement
The seven Colorado River Basin states, in response to the salinity
issues addressed by Clean Water Act of 1972, formed the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum). Comprised of gubernatorial
appointees from the seven Basin states, the Forum was created to
provide for interstate cooperation in response to the Clean Water Act,
and to provide the states with information to comply with Sections 303
(a) and (b) of the Act. The Forum has become the primary means for the
seven Basin states to coordinate with Federal agencies and Congress to
support the implementation of the salinity control program.
The Colorado River Basin salinity control program was authorized by
Congress in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974.
Congress amended the Act in 1984 to give new responsibilities to the
Department of Agriculture. While retaining the Department of the
Interior as the lead coordinator for the salinity control program, the
amended Act recognized the importance of the Department of Agriculture
operating under its authorities to meet the objectives of the salinity
control program. Many of the most cost-effective projects undertaken by
the salinity control program to date have occurred since implementation
of the Department of Agriculture's authorization for the program.
Bureau of Reclamation studies show that damages from the Colorado
River to United States water users are about $300,000,000 per year.
Damages are estimated at $75,000,000 per year for every additional
increase of 30 milligrams per liter in salinity of the Colorado River.
It is essential to the cost-effectiveness of the salinity control
program that Department of Agriculture salinity control projects be
funded for timely implementation to protect the quality of Colorado
River Basin water delivered to the Lower Basin States and Mexico.
Congress concluded, with the enactment of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA), that the salinity control
program could be most effectively implemented as a component of the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). The salinity control
program, since the enactment of FAIRA, has not been funded at an
adequate level to protect the Basin State-adopted and Environmental
Protection Agency approved water quality standards for salinity in the
Colorado River. Appropriations for EQIP have been insufficient to
adequately control salt loading impacts on water delivered to the
downstream states, and to Mexico pursuant to Minute No. 242 of the
International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico.
EQIP subsumed the salinity control program without giving adequate
recognition to the responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture to
implement salinity control measures per Section 202 (c) of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Act. The EQIP evaluation and project
ranking criteria target small watershed improvements that do not
recognize that water users hundreds of miles downstream are significant
beneficiaries of the salinity control program. Proposals for EQIP
funding are ranked in the states of Utah, Wyoming and Colorado under
the direction of the respective State Conservationists without
consideration of those downstream, particularly out-of-state, benefits.
Following recommendations of the Basin States, the Department of
Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) designated
the Colorado River Basin an ``area of special interest'' including
earmarked funds for the salinity control program. The NRCS concluded
that the salinity control program is different from the small watershed
approach of the EQIP program. The watershed for the salinity control
program stretches almost 1,200 miles, from the headwaters of the river
through the salt-laden soils of the Upper Basin to the river's
termination at the Gulf of California in Mexico. NRCS is to be
commended for its efforts to comply with the Department of
Agriculture's responsibilities under the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Act of 1974. Irrigated agriculture in the Upper Basin realizes
significant local benefits of the salinity control program and
agricultural producers have succeeded in submitting cost-effective
proposals to NRCS.
However, the Basin States, including New Mexico, have been very
dismayed that funding for EQIP has been inadequate since the enactment
of FAIRA in 1996. Several years of inadequate Federal funding for the
Department of Agriculture have resulted in the Forum finding that the
salinity control program needs to be accelerated to maintain the water
quality criteria of the Colorado River water quality standards for
salinity. Since the enactment of FSRIA in 2002, an opportunity to
adequately fund the salinity control program exists for the first time
since the enactment of FAIRA.
The Basin States contribute about $4.3 million in up-front cost
sharing and local farms contribute an estimated $3.9 million to match
the NRCS earmarked funds of about $10 million in the fiscal year 2002.
State and local cost sharing is triggered by and indexed to the Federal
appropriation. The requested funding of at least $17.5 million for
fiscal year 2004 will continue to be needed each year for at least the
next few fiscal years.
The Department of Agriculture projects have proven to be the most
cost-effective component of the salinity control program. The
Department of Agriculture has indicated that a more adequately funded
EQIP program would result in more funds being allocated to the salinity
program. The Basin States have cost sharing dollars available to
participate in on-farm salinity control efforts. The agricultural
producers in the Upper Basin are willing to cost-share their portion
and waiting for adequate funding for their applications to be
considered.
I urge the Congress to appropriate at least $1 billion from the CCC
in fiscal year 2004 for EQIP. Also, I request that Congress designate
2.5 percent of the EQIP appropriation, but at least $17.5 million, for
the Colorado River Basin salinity control program.
Finally, I request that adequate funds be appropriated to NRCS
technical assistance and education activities for the salinity control
program participants, rather than requiring the NRCS to borrow funds
from CCC for these direly needed and under funded support functions.
Recent history has shown that inadequate funding for NRCS technical
assistance and education activities has been a severe impediment to
successful implementation of the salinity control program. The Basin
States parallel funding program, implemented as a means of cost sharing
with NRCS, expends 40 percent of the states' funds available to meet
the needs of NRCS for technical assistance and education activities. I
urge the appropriation of adequate funds for these essential
activities.
______

Prepared Statement of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Billy Frank, Jr.,
Chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC), and on
behalf of the twenty-Western Washington member Tribes, I submit this
request for appropriations to support the research, sanitation and
marketing of Tribal shellfish products. We request the following:
--$500,000 to support seafood marketing costs which will assist the
tribes in fulfilling the commercial demands for their shellfish
products both domestically and abroad;
--$1,000,000 to support water and pollution sampling, sampling and
research for paralytic shellfish poisoning and coordination of
research projects with State agencies; and,
--$1,000,000 to support data gathering at the reservation level for
the conduct of shellfish population surveys and estimates.

Treaty Shellfish Rights
As with salmon, the tribes' guarantees to harvest shellfish lie
within a series of treaties signed with representatives of the Federal
Government in the mid-1850s. In exchange for the peaceful settlement of
what is today most of Western Washington, the tribes reserved the right
to continue to harvest finfish and shellfish at their usual and
accustomed grounds and stations. The tribes were specifically excluded
from harvesting shellfish from areas ``staked or cultivated'' by non-
Indian citizens. Soon after they were signed, the treaties were
forgotten or ignored.
The declining salmon resource in the Pacific Northwest negates the
legacy Indian people in Western Washington have lived by for thousands
of years. We were taught to care for the land and take from it only
what we needed and to use all that we took.
We depended on the gifts of nature for food, trade, culture and
survival. We knew when the tide was out, it was time to set the table
because we live in the land of plenty; a paradise complete. Yet,
because of the loss of salmon habitat, which is attributable to
overwhelming growth in the human population, a major pacific coastal
salmon recovery effort ensues. Our shellfish resource is our major
remaining fishery.
At least ninety types of shellfish have been traditionally
harvested by the Tribes in Western Washington and across the continent
Indian people have called us the fishing Tribes because of our rich
history of harvesting and caring for finfish and shellfish. Our
shellfish was abundant and constituted a principal resource of export,
as well as provided food to the Indians and the settlers, which greatly
reduced the living expenses.
Shellfish remain important for subsistence, economic, and
ceremonial purposes. With the rapid decline of many salmon stocks, due
to habitat loss from western Washington's unrelenting populous growth,
shellfish harvesting has become a major factor in tribal economies.
The tribes have used shellfish in trade with the non-Indian
population since the first white settlers came into the region a
century and a half ago. Newspaper accounts from the earliest days of
the Washington Territory tell of Indians selling or trading fresh
shellfish with settlers. Shellfish harvested by members of western
Washington's Indian tribes is highly sought after throughout the United
States and the Far East. Tribal representatives have gone on trade
missions to China and other Pacific Rim nations where Pacific Northwest
shellfish--particularly geoduck--is in great demand. Trade with the Far
East is growing in importance as the tribes struggle to achieve
financial security through a natural resources-based economy.
Treaty language pertaining to tribal shellfish harvesting included
this section:

``The right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and
stations is further secured to said Indians, in common with all
citizens of the United States; and of erecting temporary houses for the
purposes of curing; together with the privilege of hunting and
gathering roots and berries on open and unclaimed lands. Provided,
however, that they not take shell-fish from any beds staked or
cultivated by citizens.''
(Treaty with the S'Klallam, January 26, 1855)
In exchange for the peaceful settlement of what is today most of
western Washington, the tribes reserved the right to continue to
harvest finfish and shellfish at all of their usual and accustomed
grounds and stations. The tribes were specifically excluded from
harvesting shellfish from areas ``staked or cultivated'' by non-Indian
citizens.
Tribal efforts to have the Federal Government's treaty promises
kept began in the first years of the 20th Century when the United
States Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Winans, reaffirming that where a
treaty reserves the right to fish at all usual and accustomed places, a
state may not preclude tribal access to those places.
Sixty years later, the tribes were again preparing for battle in
court. After many years of harassment, beatings and arrests for
exercising their treaty-reserved rights, western Washington tribes took
the State of Washington to Federal court to have their rights legally
re-affirmed. In 1974, U.S. District Court Judge George Boldt ruled that
the tribes had reserved the right to half of the harvestable salmon and
steelhead in western Washington.
The ``Boldt Decision,'' which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court,
also re-established the tribes as co-managers of the salmon and
steelhead resources in western Washington.
As a result of this ruling, the tribes became responsible for
establishing fishing seasons, setting harvest limits, and enforcing
tribal fishing regulations. Professional biological staffs, enforcement
officers, and managerial staff were assembled to ensure orderly,
biologically-sound fisheries.
Beginning in the late 1970s, tribal and state staff worked together
to develop comprehensive fisheries that ensured harvest opportunities
for Indian and non-Indian alike, and also preserved the resource for
generations to come.
It was within this new atmosphere of cooperative management that
the tribes sought to restore their treaty-reserved rights to manage and
harvest shellfish from all usual and accustomed areas. Talks with their
state counterparts began in the mid-1980s, but were unsuccessful. The
tribes filed suit in Federal court in May 1989 to have their shellfish
harvest rights restored.
The filing of the lawsuit brought about years of additional
negotiations between the tribes and the state. Despite many serious
attempts at reaching a negotiated settlement, the issue went to trial
in May 1994.
In 1994, District Court Judge Edward Rafeedie upheld the right of
the treaty tribes to harvest 50 percent of all shellfish species in
their Usual and Accustomed fishing areas. Judge Rafeedie also ordered a
shellfish Management Implementation Plan that governs tribal/state co-
management activities.
After a number of appeals, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
let stand Rafeedie's ruling in 1998. Finally, in June 1999, the U.S.
Supreme Court denied review of the District court ruling, effectively
confirming the treaty shellfish harvest right.

Assist the Tribes in Marketing Efforts to Fulfill the Demands for their
Shellfish Products, $500,000
Shellfish harvested by members of Western Washington Indian Tribes
are of extreme quality and are highly sought after throughout the
United States, Europe and the Far East. Unfortunately, because Tribes
are not centrally organized and it is the individual tribal fisher who
harvests the resource, such markets have never fully materialized.
We request $500,000, which will assist the Tribes in promoting our
shellfish products, both in domestic and international markets. Tribes
anticipate the need to provide necessary health training to harvesters,
possibly develop cooperative seafood ventures, develop marketing
materials and engage in actual marketing operations. Specific earmarked
funding from the Committee can jump start tribal efforts in these
areas. We also anticipate participating in intertribal consortiums that
generally promote tribal products, and urge the Committee to support
necessary funding for those efforts. Funding from the Committee will
allow the tribes to realize the fair value for their product, help
employ more tribal members, and allow the tribes to fulfill their
treaty rights.

Water and Pollution Sampling, Sampling and Research for Paralytic
Shellfish Poisoning and Coordination of Research Projects with
State and Federal Agencies, $1,000,000
Shellfish growing areas are routinely surveyed for current or
potential pollution impacts and are classified based on the results of
frequent survey information. No shellfish harvest is conducted on
beaches that have not been certified by the tribes and the Washington
Department of Health. Growing areas are regularly monitored for water
quality status and naturally-occurring biotoxins to protect the public
health.
However, both Tribal and non-Indian fisheries have been threatened
due to the lack of understanding about the nature of biotoxins,
especially in subtidal geoduck clams. Research targeted to better
understand the nature of biotoxins could prevent unnecessary illness
and death that may result from consuming toxic shellfish, and could
prevent unnecessary closure of tribal and non-Indian fisheries.

Data Gathering at the Reservation Level for the Conduct of Shellfish
Population Surveys and Estimates, $1,000,000
Very little current data and technical information exists for many
of the shellfish fisheries now being jointly managed by state and
Tribal managers. This is particularly true for many free-swimming and
deep-water species. This lack of information can not only impact
fisheries and the resource as a whole, but makes it difficult to assess
50/50 treaty sharing arrangements. Additionally, intertidal assessment
methodologies differ between state and tribal programs, and can lead to
conflicts in management planning.
Existing data systems must be enhanced for catch reporting,
population assessment and to assist enhancement efforts. Research on
methodology for population assessment and techniques also is critical
to effective management.
Onsite beach surveys are required to identify harvestable
populations of shellfish. Regular monitoring of beaches is also
necessary to ensure that the beaches remain safe for harvest.
Additional and more accurate population survey and health certification
data is needed to maintain these fisheries and open new harvest areas.
This information will help protect current and future resources and
provide additional harvest opportunities.

Conclusion
We ask that you give serious consideration to our needs. We are
available to discuss these requests with committee members or staff at
your convenience. Thank you.
______

Prepared Statement of the Oklahoma Farmers Union Farm and Rural
Programs Coordinator, National Fire Ant Strategy Development, and
Oklahoma Fire Ant Research and Management Advisory Committee

For the last several years I have submitted testimony on behalf of
finding solutions that are economically viable to manage fire ants. In
that time the number of acres, counties and states have continued to
grow. Also, in that time has come great hope for finding a solution to
control the fire ant pest. As an agriculture producer stakeholder and
as a parent I have a keen interest in moving forward with the research
as quickly as possible.
Fire ants are a frequent topic of conversation among the 100,000
plus family memberships that make-up the Oklahoma Farmers Union. Our
membership is comprised of agriculture producers, rural neighbors and
urban cousins--if you will. We represent this membership in three areas
of legislative activity, cooperative development and educational
opportunity as well as provide property and casualty and life insurance
services to our membership. We are also the driving force to ensure
that fire ant research is included in our national organization policy.
And, we have organized an educational session for Congressman, staff
and other key people on Capitol Hill with ARS presenting a fire ant
research update.
Our membership is very interested in this issue and as soon as the
warmth returns to the state in the next few weeks the calls will start
and our membership will want to know what we are doing about
controlling the fire ant. I am always pleased to let them know the
progress that is being made with ARS in cooperation with the land grant
universities. But, we must do more and the only way to do that is with
additional resources.
While fire ants have been around for decades as a result of
importation into Alabama from South America, this non-native pest has
spread further and caused far more destructive damage than ever
envisioned. Just a few decades ago, it was never anticipated that these
pests would expand so far north and encompass so many states and such a
great population. Yet, today there are no signs of any slow-down and
the impacted constituencies continue to grow. The red imported fire ant
now infests and requires APHIS quarantine in over 321 million acres in
13 states and Puerto Rico. And, the counties and states continue to be
added. Since the first of the year additional counties in Tennessee
have been added with some counties revised to indicate complete
infestation. The total annual fire ant losses to households, business,
schools, government and military are estimated at $6 billion. Total
fire ant losses to agriculture alone are estimated at almost $900
million annually. If we were to treat with conventional chemicals all
infested land in the U.S., the cost would be between $6 billion to $12
billion per year.
My interest in fire ants first came in 1985 when the imported red
fire ants first crossed the border in Southeastern Oklahoma. As a U.S.
House of Representatives Associate Appropriations Staff member for the
House Agriculture and Rural Development Subcommittee, I drafted
questions asked of ARS as to the status of research regarding the
control or eradication of fire ants as a few constituents began to call
from the district.
In recent years, it has become much more personal now that imported
red fire ants has spread to the mid-south central area of the state and
to my farm and home. Our agriculture operation is split with part being
in a quarantined county and part in a non-quarantined county. By the
most stringent interpretation of the law, I cannot feed cattle in a
non-quarantined county with hay produced in a quarantined county even
though the pasture may be just across the road. The fire ant
infestations have resulted in an economic impact on us as well because
it impacts where we can sell the hay.
And, equally important is our quality of life. I have two young
daughters--Courtney is 7 years old and Sarah is 2 years and they both
love playing outside but it is different today than when I grew up.
Today we must watch for the new danger of fire ants whether recreation
or work is involved.
With the increased activity in my area my interest gained in the
issue and just a few years ago I made contact with the Gainesville fire
ant research team presenting at the Southern Legislative Conference in
Oklahoma City, a conference for state legislators across the south.
From that initial meeting, we worked together with a variety of state
cooperators including Oklahoma, Texas, South Carolina and Alabama to
create a national strategy for dealing with fire ants. While many
research components existed, a comprehensive national focus and
strategy did not. That plan has applied the tools and the science that
these extremely talented people had been working so diligently on in
recent years
Recently, I participated in the USDA-ARS National Fire Ant Program
Review in New Orleans which are held every five years with
stakeholders. I am excited about the direction taken by ARS with fire
ant work. While not totally discounting chemicals, the scope is to use
all tools at their disposal to combat the enemy. Non-native bio-
controls such as phorid flies, existing bio-controls such as fire ant
pathogens within fire ant populations, native ant species and chemical
bait applications are all part of the integrated approach. We must find
a means to reduce the expense to producers when treating for fire ants.
Past history has shown that a chemical application approach alone isn't
economically feasible nor responsible for the impact on the environment
unless we do find the magic formula that will not impact the
environment and be cost efficient. The research represents efforts to
provide self-sustaining, limited or non-pesticidial, biologically based
control tactics for a serious medical, veterinary, and agricultural
pest, which would be safe and effective in urban, agricultural and
natural ecosystems.
With success in the laboratory and small sites around Florida, the
research has expanded to cooperators across the south. As a result of
the success, mass rearing facilities for the phorid flies are coming
on-line much like the mass rearing done with the successful screwworm
program. In Oklahoma, considered the northern reach of the experiment
process, we are encouraged that we have seen multiple generations of
parasitic phorid flies in the field and we are anxious to see if they
survived the winter.
The research being conducted in this area speaks to the confidence
that colleagues of the scientists have in them and as a result this
program is one of a handful of initiatives to receive additional funds
based on the peer review recommendation process. The Area-Wide
Suppression of Fire Ant Populations in Pastures is expected to run 4-5
years. This area wide management project uses permanently established
bio-control agents and reduced chemical pesticide applications to
maintain the fire ant population below economic damage thresholds.
Specific objectives are to: Release and spread natural enemies for fire
ants--decapitating flies and Thelohania fire ant disease; Area wide
reduction of fire ant populations by 80 percent using natural enemies;
Save at least $5 billion a year in cost of fire ant control and damage
for agricultural producers, businesses, homeowners, government and
military; Reduce reliance on repeated applications of insecticide for
fire ant control; and Restore ecological balance in the natural
environment. This project aims to demonstrate and transfer to the
public, management strategies for the imported fire ant. If successful,
this will return money to my pocket book and impact my families'
quality of life.
An area not yet fully tapped in research of the control of fire
ants is to identify viruses that can be used in the weapons of war
against this enemy. Hopefully, funds can be found to bring on a
molecular biologist to the team to further target this area.
I commend the Congress for providing additional funds for fire ants
to the Biological Control of Pests Research Unit in Stoneville,
Mississippi. These funds will greatly assist in the mass rearing of
phorid flies that are showing great hope as one means leading to
helping in the control process. However, the location charged with the
overall mission of fire ant research has not seen a congressional
increase in 30 years for this effort. Our request is that you increase
the research base of the Imported Fire Ant Unit at the Center for
Medical, Agricultural & Veterinary Entomology in Gainesville, Florida
by a total of $800,000.
The available base for this research mission has actually been
dropping steadily and we are in a position today where the critical
mass of only a few experienced scientist' remain at Gainesville.
Investing in the basic applied research at this location is key to the
success at all other work at ARS and land grant locations related to
the issue. Let's not stop at this point. Biological methods for
treatment of fire ants are working! While it is exciting that we are
finally making more progress on fire ants in the last few years than we
have for the entire time that fire ants has plagued this country--
continued success requires one key ingredient--adequate funding.
We would strongly encourage you to provide the appropriate funding
of $2 million annually to Gainesville by adding $800,000 to the ARS
budget base for such a nationally biologically-based integrated
management strategy that includes a partnership of both USDA-ARS, state
land-grant universities, state legislatures and the private sector.
In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony on
behalf of the grassroots agriculture producers across the south that
struggle each day to make a viable living and home for their families.
Thank you
______

Prepared Statement of the Organization for the Promotion and
Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies

SUMMARY OF REQUEST

The Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small
Telecommunications Companies (OPASTCO) seeks the Subcommittee's support
for fiscal year 2004 loan levels for the telecommunications loans
program and Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) program administered by the
Rural Utilities Service (RUS) in the following amounts:

[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 percent hardship loans................................ 145
Treasury rate loans..................................... 250
Guaranteed loans........................................ 100
RTB loans............................................... 175
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, OPASTCO requests the following action by the
Subcommittee: (1) a prohibition on the transfer of unobligated RTB
funds to the general fund of the Treasury and a requirement that
interest be paid on these funds; (2) funding of the distance learning,
telemedicine, and broadband grant and loan programs at sufficient
levels; and (3) removal of the prohibition on rural communities located
in standard metropolitan statistical areas from participating in the
broadband loan program.

GENERAL

OPASTCO is a national trade association of approximately 500 small
telecommunications carriers serving primarily rural areas of the United
States. Its members, which include both commercial companies and
cooperatives, together serve over 2.6 million customers in 42 states.
Approximately half of OPASTCO's members are RUS or RTB borrowers.
Perhaps at no time since the inception of the RUS (formerly the
REA) has the telecommunications loans and RTB programs been so vital to
the future of rural America. The telecommunications industry is at a
crossroads, both in terms of technology and public policy. Rapid
advances in telecommunications technology in recent years have already
begun to deliver on the promise of a new ``information age.'' The
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) ongoing implementation of the
landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996, as well as modernization
resulting from prior statutory changes to RUS's lending program, will
expedite this transformation. In addition, both Federal and State
policymakers have made deployment of advanced telecommunications
services a top priority. However, without continued support of the
telecommunications loans and RTB programs, rural telephone companies
will be hard pressed to build the infrastructure necessary to bring
their communities into this new age, creating a bifurcated society of
information ``haves'' and ``have-nots.''
Contrary to the belief of some critics, RUS's job is not finished.
Actually, in a sense, it has just begun. We have entered a time when
advanced services and technology--such as broadband fiber optics, high-
speed packet and digital switching equipment, and digital subscriber
line technology--are expected by customers in all areas of the country,
both urban and rural. Unfortunately, the inherently higher costs of
upgrading the rural wireline network, both for voice and data
communications, has not abated.
Rural telecommunications continues to be more capital intensive and
involves fewer paying customers than its urban counterpart. Nationally,
the average population density in areas served by rural carriers is
only about 13 persons per square mile. This compares to a national
average population density of 105 persons per square mile in areas
served by non-rural carriers. The FCC's February 2002 report on the
deployment of advanced telecommunications capability noted that a
positive correlation persists between population density and the
presence of subscribers to high-speed services. Indeed, the report
stated that there are high-speed subscribers in 97 percent of the most
densely populated zip codes but in only 49 percent of the zip codes
with the lowest population densities. In order for rural telephone
companies to modernize their networks and provide consumers with
advanced services at reasonable rates, they must have access to
reliable low-cost financing.
The relative isolation of rural areas increases the value of
telecommunications services for these citizens. Telecommunications
enables applications such as high-speed Internet connectivity, distance
learning, and telemedicine that can alleviate or eliminate some rural
disadvantages. A modern telecommunications infrastructure can also make
rural areas attractive for some businesses and result in revitalization
of the rural economy. For example, businesses such as telemarketing and
tourism can thrive in rural areas, and telecommuting can become a
realistic employment option.
While it has been said many times before, it bears repeating that
RUS's telecommunications loans and RTB programs are not grant programs.
The funds loaned by RUS are used to leverage substantial private
capital, creating public/private partnerships. For a very small cost,
the government is encouraging tremendous amounts of private investment
in rural telecommunications infrastructure.
Most importantly, the programs are tremendously successful.
Borrowers actually build the infrastructure and the government is
reimbursed with interest. There has never been a default in the history
of the telecommunications lending programs.

THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 HAS HEIGHTENED THE NEED FOR THE RUS
AND RTB LOAN PROGRAMS

The FCC's implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 will
only increase rural telecommunications carriers' need for RUS
assistance in the future. The forward-looking Act defines universal
service as an evolving level of telecommunications services that the
FCC must establish periodically, taking into account advances in
telecommunications and information technologies and services. The FCC
is currently seeking comment on the recommended decision of the
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service regarding the list of
services supported by the high-cost universal service program. RUS has
an essential role to play in the implementation of the law, as it will
compliment support mechanisms established by the FCC, thus enabling
rural America to move closer to achieving the Federally mandated goal
of rural/urban service and rate comparability.
a $175 million loan level should be maintained for the rtb program
As previously discussed, the RTB's mission has not been completed
as rural carriers continue to rely on this important source of
supplemental financing in order to provide their communities with
access to the next generation of telecommunications services. Pursuant
to Section 305(d)(2)(B) of the Rural Electrification (RE) Act, Treasury
rate loans are to be made concurrently with RTB loans. Thus, if lending
is not authorized for the RTB, the overall telecommunications loans
program will be significantly reduced, to the detriment of rural
Americans. The ongoing need for the RTB program makes it essential to
maintain a $175 million loan level for fiscal year 2004.

THE PROHIBITION ON THE TRANSFER OF ANY UNOBLIGATED BALANCE OF THE RTB
LIQUIDATING ACCOUNT TO THE TREASURY AND REQUIRING THE PAYMENT OF
INTEREST ON THESE FUNDS SHOULD BE CONTINUED

OPASTCO urges the Subcommittee to reinstate language prohibiting
the transfer of any unobligated balance of the RTB liquidating account
to the Treasury or the Federal Financing Bank which is in excess of
current requirements and requiring the payment of interest on these
funds. As a condition of borrowing, the statutory language establishing
the RT13 requires telephone companies to purchase Class B stock in the
bank. Borrowers may convert Class B stock into Class C stock on an
annual basis up to the principal amount repaid. Thus, all current and
former borrowers maintain an ownership interest in the RTB. As with
stockholders of any concern, these owners have rights which may not be
abrogated. The Subcommittee's inclusion of the aforementioned language
into the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill will ensure that RT13
borrowers are not stripped of the value of this required investment.

THE DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAMS SHOULD
CONTINUE TO BE FUNDED AT ADEQUATE LEVELS

In addition to RUS's telecommunications loans and RTB programs,
OPASTCO supports adequate funding of the distance learning,
telemedicine, and broadband grant and loan programs. Through distance
learning, rural students gain access to advanced classes which will
help them prepare for college and jobs of the future. Telemedicine
provides rural residents with access to quality health care services
without traveling great distances to urban hospitals. In addition, the
broadband program will allow more rural communities to gain high-speed
access to the Internet and receive other advanced services. In light of
the Telecommunications Act's purpose of encouraging; deployment of
advanced technologies and services to all Americans--including schools
and health care providers--sufficient targeted funding for these
purposes is essential in fiscal year 2004.

THE PROHIBITION ON RURAL COMMUNITIES LOCATED IN STANDARD METROPOLITAN
STATISTICAL AREAS FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE BROADBAND LOAN PROGRAM
SHOULD BE REMOVED

Last year, Congress passed the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002. That Act added new Title VI to the RE Act, which
established a broadband loan program. Under Section 601(b)(2) of Title
VI, in order for a rural community to be eligible for the program, the
community cannot: (a) have more than 20,000 inhabitants, and (b) be
located in an area designated as a standard metropolitan statistical
area (SMSA). Through these criteria, it is reasonable to assume that
Congress was attempting to distinguish between urban and rural areas
and to exclude those areas that are obviously urban. Unfortunately, the
second criterion that excludes areas located within SMSAs would
encompass many rural communities with less than 20,000 inhabitants--
perhaps more than 40 percent of such areas. Certainly, Congress did not
intend to automatically exclude so many small communities of America
from a program designed to facilitate deployment of broadband
technology in rural areas. In addition, the Bureau of the Census has
not recognized the SMSA designation since before 1990, making it
practically impossible to interpret this exclusionary provision.
Therefore, OPASTCO urges the Subcommittee to remove this criterion so
that more rural Americans can reap the benefits of broadband
technology.

CONCLUSION

The development of the nationwide telecommunications network into
an information superhighway, as envisioned by policymakers, will help
rural America survive and prosper in any market--whether local,
regional, national, or global. However, without the availability of
low-cost RUS fiends, building the information superhighway in
communities that are isolated and thinly populated will be untenable.
By supporting the RUS telecommunications programs at the requested
levels, the Subcommittee will be making a significant contribution to
the future of rural America.
______

Prepared Statement of the Partnership for Food Safety Education

As your Subcommittee prepares for its fiscal year 2004
appropriations process, we are writing to request your help in
advancing a funding item in which all of us have a strong interest--
helping ensure that Americans are educated about and protected from
foodborne illnesses and diseases. In order to develop an appropriate
food safety education program that will benefit consumers and prepare
them for a potential bioterrorist attack, as well as protect themselves
from the threats posed by common foodborne pathogens, the Partnership
for Food Safety Education (``Partnership'') requests $1.3 million in
new funding within the Food and Drug Administration account of the
fiscal year 2004 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.
As you well know, foodborne illness is a serious public health
problem. The Partnership, a non-profit, public-private partnership
composed of consumer groups and national food industries, in liaison
with Federal agencies, will work to establish an educational program
that will provide current information to educate individuals about food
safety issues. Although provisions are in place to protect our food
supply from acts of terror, there is not a communications program
available to educate the American public on how to be prepared in the
event of a bioterrorist attack. By coordinating the efforts of the
public and private sectors, the Partnership can develop and manage a
food safety education program to assist in this important task.
The Partnership is an ideal model of how consumer groups, industry,
and government agencies can work together for the good of the American
people. Since its formation in 1997, the Partnership has demonstrated
its ability to educate consumers about proper safe food handling. Based
on this experience and using its existing structure, the Partnership
can develop research-based consumer messages to inform and educate the
American people, through their local governments, regarding potential
threats to the food supply.
Although most consumers are concerned about food safety, many
Americans today have inadequate knowledge about basic sanitation and
food handling steps that can greatly reduce the risk of foodborne
illness. To address this knowledge gap, in October 1997, the
Partnership launched a nationwide consumer education campaign called
Fight BAC! (bacteria). This campaign has been an enormous success,
with the Partnership coordinating thousands of community organizations
and retail centers to educate consumers. These campaigns have allowed
the Partnership to educate over one quarter of the U.S. population in
an effort to reduce the incidents of foodborne illnesses in our
country, the requested funding, the Partnership will be able to further
protect the American people from foodborne illness and disease,
regardless of its source.
As always, we are grateful for your interest in promoting food
safety. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions
regarding this request for funding under the fiscal year 2004
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.
______

Prepared Statement of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA)

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the world's
largest animal rights organization, with more than 750,000 members and
supporters. We greatly appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony
regarding the fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). Our testimony will focus on chemical tests
allowed or required by the FDA to be conducted on animals.
As you may know, the FDA requires substances such as drugs,
medicated skin creams, and others to be tested for their rates of skin
absorption, skin irritation, phototoxicity, and/or pyrogenicity
(potential to cause fever). Traditionally, these tests involve smearing
chemicals on animals' shaved backs (often causing painful lesions), or
injecting a substance into an animal's bloodstream (often causing
breathing problems, organ failure, or fatal shock).
Fortunately, there are non-animal test methods that are just as
effective, if not more so. Various tissue-based methods have been
accepted in Europe as total replacements for skin absorption studies in
living animals. Government regulators in Canada accept the use of a
skin-patch test in human volunteers as a replacement for animal-based
skin irritation studies (for non-corrosive substances free of other
harmful properties). The Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), of which the U.S. is a key member, has accepted a
cell culture test for light-induced (``photo'') toxicity, and a test
using donated human blood has been validated in Europe as a total
replacement for animal-based fever, or pyrogenicity, studies.
However, the FDA continues to require the use of animals for all
four of these endpoints, despite the availability of non-animal tests.
We respectfully request that the subcommittee include report
language ensuring that no funds for the FDA (including salaries or
expenses of personnel) may be used for the purpose of assessing data
from an animal-based test method when a non-animal test for the desired
endpoint has been validated and/or accepted by the OECD or its member
countries.

Animal tests cause immense suffering
Traditionally, the rate at which a chemical is able to penetrate
the skin has been measured by shaving the backs of rats and smearing
the substance on them for an exposure period of up to 24 hours. They
are eventually killed, and their skin, blood, and excrement are
analyzed. A similar method is used to test for skin irritation, except
it usually done to rabbits, who are locked in full-body restraints. A
test chemical is applied to their shaved backs, and the wound site is
then covered with a gauze patch for normally four hours. A chemical is
considered to be an irritant if it causes reversible skin lesions or
other clinical signs, which heal partially or totally by the end of a
14-day period. Phototoxic chemicals cause inflammation of the skin when
applied to skin that is subsequently exposed to sunlight or ultraviolet
radiation. To test for phototoxicity, a similar body-restraint, shaved-
back procedure is used, but this time it is mice and guinea pigs who
are the subjects, and they are kept restrained for several days while
enduring the pain, swelling, and sores that develop on their skin.
Pyrogenicity is the potential of a substance to cause fever and
inflammation. Once again, the traditional pyrogenicity test method
involves locking rabbits in full-body restraints. After having a test
substance injected into their bloodstream, the rabbits can suffer
fever, breathing problems, circulatory and organ failure, and fatal
shock. Animals used in the above tests are not given any painkillers.

These tests have never been proven to be relevant to humans
None of the animal tests currently used for skin absorption,
irritation, phototoxicity, or pyrogenicity has ever been scientifically
validated for its reliability or relevance to human health effects.
Animal studies yield highly variable data and are often poor predictors
of human reactions. For example, one study, which compared the results
of rabbit skin irritation tests with real-world human exposure
information for 65 chemicals, found that the animal test was wrong
nearly half (45 percent) of the time in its prediction of a chemical's
skin damaging potential (Food & Chemical Toxicology, Vol. 40, pp. 573-
92, 2002). For phototoxicity, the animal-based tests have never even
been codified into a standardized test guideline, meaning that the
protocols can vary widely from laboratory to laboratory, rendering the
results virtually uninterpretable. There are well-documented drawbacks
to the rabbit pyrogen test, including marked differences in sensitivity
between species and strains of rabbits.

Validated methods exist which do not harm animals
Fortunately, test methods have been found to accurately predict
skin absorption, irritation, phototoxicity and pyrogenicity without
harming animals.
The absorption rate of a chemical through the skin can be measured
using skin from a variety of sources (e.g. human cadavers). The
reliability and relevance of these in vitro methods have been
thoroughly established through a number of international expert
reviews, and have been codified and accepted as an official test
guideline of the OECD.
Instead of animal-based skin irritation studies, government
regulators in Canada accept the use of a skin-patch test using human
volunteers. (The chemical is first determined to be non-corrosive and
free of other harmful properties before being considered for human
studies.)
A cell culture test has been validated in Europe and accepted at
the international level as a total replacement for animal-based
phototoxicity studies. The 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test
involves exposing cells to a test chemical in the presence and absence
of light, and cell viability is measured by the degree to which they
are able to absorb the dye, neutral red. This method is the only test
for phototoxicity that has been accepted as an official test guideline
of the OECD, yet the FDA continues to use thousands of animals to test
for phototoxicity.
Using human blood donated by healthy volunteers, an in vitro
pyrogen test has been validated in Europe as a total replacement for
animal-based pyrogenicity studies.

Non-animal test methods can save time, money, and yield more useful
results
Tissue culture methods to test for skin absorption allow
researchers to study a broader range of doses, including those at the
actual level of exposure that occurs in the occupational or ambient
environment, which is not possible with the animal-based method.
Many non-animal methods can yield results with greater sensitivity
and at a lower cost than animal-based methods. Protocols are more
easily standardized, and the variations among strains and species are
no longer a factor.

The FDA continues to require the use of animals
Despite the ethical, financial, efficiency, and scientific
advantages of the above non-animal methods, the FDA continues to
require and accept the unnecessary use of animals in tests for skin
absorption, irritation, phototoxicity, and pyrogenicity.

Summary
Non-animal methods are available now to replace animal-based
methods to test substances for skin absorption, irritation,
phototoxicity, and pyrogenicity. There simply is no excuse for
continuing to cause animals to suffer when non-animal tests are
available.
We therefore hereby request, on behalf of all Americans who care
about the suffering of animals in toxicity tests, that you please
include language in the report accompanying the fiscal year 2004
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and
Related Agencies bill stating that no funds for the FDA (including
salaries or expenses of personnel) may be used for the purpose of
assessing data from an animal-based test method when a non-animal test
for the desired endpoint has been validated and/or accepted by the OECD
or its member countries.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
______

Prepared Statement of the Red River Valley Association

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Wayne Dowd, and I
am pleased to represent the Red River Valley Association as its
President. Our organization was founded in 1925 with the express
purpose of uniting the citizens of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and
Texas to develop the land and water resources of the Red River Basin.
As an organization that knows the value of our precious water
resources we support the most beneficial water and land conservation
programs administered through the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS). We understand that attention and resources must be
given to our national security; however, we cannot sacrifice what has
been accomplished on our nation's lands. NRCS programs are a model of
how conservation programs should be administered and our testimony will
address the needs of the nation as well as our region.
The President's fiscal year 2004 budget for NRCS indicates a
decrease of $142 million from fiscal year 2003. In reality NRCS is
taking a major decrease in program funding and staff years. This
reduction of direct funding is compounded by inadequate Technical
Assistance (TA) funding for mandatory support to CCC Farm Bill
programs. The fiscal year 2004 budget reflects a serious shortfall in
services for landowner assistance that will not be available in fiscal
year 2004. This is also reflected in the fact that NRCS manpower for
fiscal year 2004 would have to decrease by 1,400 staff years. This is
unacceptable.
This means that NRCS assistance to landowners will not be
adequately funded, to the detriment of the agency and our natural
resources. We would like to address several of the programs
administered by NRCS. Failure to adequately fund these initiatives
would reduce assistance to those who want it and the resources that
need protection.
Conservation Operations.--This has been in steady decline, in real
dollars, over the past several years. It has occurred partly as a
result of funds being reduced from Conservation Operations to balance
increases in technical assistance for mandatory conservation financial
assistance programs.
The President's budget included $774 million, which is a decrease
of $51 million from fiscal year 2003.
This reflects a decrease in ``discretionary'' Technical Assistance,
which is compounded by inadequate funding of TA for mandatory Farm Bill
programs. The TA shortfall, for mandatory programs, must come out of
this account leaving little funds for discretionary use. This is far
short of what is required to serve the needs of our nation's private
lands. We request a total of $800 million be appropriated For
Conservation Technical Assistance, increasing Conservation Operations
to $975,000,000.
Conservation Technical Assistance is the foundation of technical
support and a sound, scientific delivery system for voluntary
conservation to the private users and owners of lands in the United
States. It is imperative that we provide assistance to all ``working
lands'' not just those fortunate few who are able to get enrolled in
programs. Working lands are not just crops and pasture (commodity
staples) but includes forests, wildlife habitat and coastal marshes.
The problem is that NRCS personnel funded from ``mandatory programs''
can only provide technical assistance to those enrolled in these
programs, leaving the majority of the agricultural community without
technical assistance. We recommend that this funding for technical
assistance be placed in ``Conservation Technical Assistance'', and
allow NRCS to provide assistance to everyone.
We do not support the use of third party vendors for technical
assistance as a replacement of career NRCS public servants rather than
``in addition to''. We would then have to address the question of
quality assurance and administration for these programs. Why establish
a new process that will ultimately cost more than using the in-house
expertise that now exists and has proven to be successful? We believe
third party vendors can be made available only after NRCS staffing is
brought up to levels commensurate with the increase in workload caused
by the Farm Bill.
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (Public Law 566 & 534).--
We are greatly disappointed that the President's Budget provided only
$45,000,000 for watershed operations. There is no doubt that this is a
Federal responsibility, as well as for the local sponsor. We ask our
legislators to support the local sponsors in this national issue. This
funding level is too low to support a national program, as important as
this one.
We are very appreciative for the funding level of $110 million
enacted in the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill. It is reassuring
to know that both Houses of Congress realize the importance of this
program to the agricultural community.
There are many new projects, which are awaiting funds for
construction under this program. We strongly recommend that a funding
level of $200 million be appropriated for Watershed Operations, Public
Law 534 ($20 million) and Public Law 566 ($180 million) programs.
Walnut Bayou Irrigation Project, AR.--This project received
$300,000 in the fiscal year 2003 appropriations. Plans and
specifications have been completed and it is ready to proceed into the
construction phase. An irrigation district has been formed and they are
prepared to generate the income for the O&M required to support this
project. We request that $4,000,000 be appropriated for this specific
project in fiscal year 2004.
Red Bayou Irrigation Project, LA.--The plans and specifications
will be completed in fiscal year 2003 making this project ready for
construction in fiscal year 2004. An irrigation district has been
formed and prepared to collect funds to support the O&M for this
proposed system. We request that $2,500,000 be specifically
appropriated for this project in fiscal year 2004.
The Red River has proven, through studies and existing irrigation,
to be a great water source for supplemental irrigation. The two
projects mentioned above, will use existing, natural bayous to deliver
water for landowners to draw from. The majority of expense will be for
the pump system to take water from the Red River to the bayous. This
project will provide the ability to move from ground water dependency
to surface water, an effort encouraged throughout the nation. Both will
enhance the environmental quality and economic vitality of the small
communities adjacent to the projects.
Watershed Rehabilitation.--More than 10,400 individual watershed
structures have been installed nationally. They have contributed
greatly to conservation, environmental protection and enhancement,
economic development and the social well being of our communities. More
than half of these structures are over 30 years old and several hundred
are approaching their 50-year life expectancy. Today you hear a lot
about the watershed approach to resource management. These programs
offer a complete watershed management approach and should continue for
the following reasons:
--They protect more people and communities from flooding than when
they were first constructed.
--Their objectives and functions sustain our nation's natural
resources for future operations.
--They are required to have local partners and be cost shared.
--The communities and NRCS share initiatives and decisions.
--They follow NEPA guidelines and enhance the environment.
--They often address the need of low income and minority communities.
--The benefit to cost ratio for this program has been evaluated to be
2.2:1.
What other Federal program can claim such success?
There is no questioning the value of this program. The cost of
losing this infrastructure exceeds the cost to reinvest in our existing
watersheds. Without repairing and upgrading the safety of existing
structures, we miss the opportunity to keep our communities alive and
prosperous. It would be irresponsible to dismantle a program that has
demonstrated such great return and is supported by our citizens. We
cannot wait for a catastrophe to occur where life is lost to decide to
take on this important work.
A 1999 survey, conducted in 22 states, showed that 2,200 structures
are in need of immediate rehabilitation at an estimated cost of $543
million. The President's budget neglects the safety and well being of
our community needs by placing only $10 million for this program. This
is drastically lower than the levels authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill.
We request that $55 million be appropriated to provide financial and
technical assistance to those watershed projects where sponsors are
prepared to commence rehabilitation measures, as directed in the 2002
Farm Bill.
Watershed Survey and Planning.--In fiscal year 2003 $11.2 million
was appropriated to support this extremely important community program.
NRCS has become a facilitator for the different community interest
groups, state and Federal agencies. In our states such studies are
helping identify resource needs and solutions where populations are
encroaching into rural areas. The Administration decided to fund this
program with only $5 million. We strongly disagree with this low level
and ask Congress to fund this important program at the appropriate
level.
As our municipalities expand, the water resource issue tends to be
neglected until a serious problem occurs. Proper planning and
cooperative efforts can prevent problems and insure that water resource
issues are addressed. We request this program be funded at a level of
$40 million.
--Maniece Bayou Irrigation Project, AR.--This is a project in its
initial stage of planning. An irrigation district is being
farmed to be the local sponsor. This project transfers water
from the Red River into Maniece Bayou where landowners would
draw water for supplemental irrigation. We request that
$200,000 be appropriated to initiate the plans and
specifications.
--Lower Cane River Irrigation Project, LA.--The transfer of water
from the Red River to the Lower Cane River will provide
opportunities for irrigation and economic development. Funds
are needed to initiate a Cooperative River Basin Study. We
request that $300,000 be appropriated for this study.
Emergency Watershed Protection Program.--This program has
traditionally been funded through Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
and administered by NRCS through its Watershed and Flood Prevention
Operations. It has traditionally been a zero budget line item, because
it relies on a supplemental appropriation.
As our populations expand and shift, land use changes and
intensifies. Impacts of severe weather events are becoming more intense
on our communities, rivers and related eco-systems. These major weather
events will have an adverse impact requiring urgent NRCS assistance. It
is important that NRCS is prepared for a rapid response, not waiting
for legislative action to provide funds for emergency work. With some
funds available, they would be able respond immediately to an emergency
when it occurs and not have to wait for an emergency supplemental to be
passed.
We request that $20 million be appropriated as ``seed'' funding to
allow NRCS to react to an emergency while the full need is determined
and added through a supplemental appropriation.
Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D).--This has always been
a well-received program by the Administration. Their budget proposal of
$51 million is adequate to accomplish the needs of the Nation and we
support this level of funding.
Mandatory Accounts (CCC) Technical Assistance (TA).--Request for
assistance through the CCC programs has been overwhelming. Requests far
exceed the available funds and place an additional workload on NRCS's
delivery system. Adequate funding for TA must be provided to administer
these programs. Historically 19 percent of total program cost has been
required.
The mandatory CCC programs for fiscal year 2004 have been
appropriated at a level of $3.9 billion. Only $432 million (11 percent)
has been allocated in TA for NRCS. NRCS will have to fund this TA
requirement at a level of $741 million. The short fall will have to
come from the Conservation Operation account, which is unacceptable.
This leaves little funding for discretionary assistance to landowners.
We request that CCC Program budget TA at $741 million (19 percent) and
funds NOT be taken from the CO account to administer this program as
Congress saw fit to do in the 2003 Omnibus Bill.
Over 70 percent of our land is privately owned. This is important
in order to understand the need for NRCS programs and technical
assistance. Their presence is vital to ensuring sound technical
standards are met in conservation. These programs not only address
agricultural production, but sound natural resource management. Without
these programs and NRCS properly staffed to implement them, many
private landowners will not be served adequately to apply conservation
measures needed to sustain our natural resources for future
generations.
There have been new clean water initiatives, but why do we ignore
the agency that has a proven record for implementing watershed
conservation programs? Congress must decide; will NRCS continue to
provide the leadership within our communities to build upon the
partnerships already established? It is up to Congress to insure NRCS
is properly funded and staffed to provide the needed assistance to our
taxpayers for conservation programs.
All these programs apply to the citizens in the Red River Valley
and their future is our concern. The RRVA is dedicated to work toward
the programs that will benefit our citizens and provide for high
quality of life standards. We therefore request that you appropriate
the requested funding within these individual programs, to insure our
nation's conservation needs are met.
I thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony on behalf
of the members of the Red River Valley Association and we pledge our
support to assist you in the appropriation process
Grant Disclosure.--The Red River Valley Association has not
received any Federal grant, sub-grant or contract during the current
fiscal year or either of the two previous fiscal years.

RED RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION FISCAL YEAR 2004 APPROPRIATIONS--NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)
[In thousands of dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RRVA request President's
Discretionary accounts Fiscal year fiscal year budget fiscal
2003 2004 year 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation Operations......................................... 825,004 930,000 \1\ 774,000
Watershed Protection & Flood Prevention Operations.............. 110,000 200,000 45,000
Walnut Bayou Irrigation Project, AR......................... 300 4,000 ..............
Red Bayou Irrigation Project, LA............................ 0 2,500 ..............
Watershed Rehabilitation........................................ 30,000 55,000 10,000
Watershed Survey & Planning..................................... 11,197 40,000 5,000
Maniece Bayou Irrigation Project, AR........................ 0 200 ..............
Lower Cane River Irrigation Project, LA..................... New 300
Resource Conservation & Development(RC&D)....................... 51,000 51,000 51,000
Emergency Watershed Protection.................................. 0 20,000 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: This funding level would reduce NRCS manpower by 1,400 FTE. There does not appear to be any correlation
between workload to manpower.

Mandatory Accounts (CCC)--$3.9 Billion.--This fund is for Technical
Assistance (TA) and Financial Assistance (FA) to support the following
CCC, Farm Bill programs:
Environmental Quality Incentives Program--EQIP
Ground and Surface Water Conservation--GSW
Farmland Protection Program--FPP
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program--WHIP
Wetlands Reserve Program--WRP
Grassland Reserve Program--GRP
Conservation Securities Program--CSP
Klamath Basin Water Conservation
The President's Budget has provided $432,000,000, which is less
than 11 percent of the $3.9 billion allocated for these programs in
fiscal year 2004. The historical TA that has been required is 19
percent, which is a TA requirement of $741,000,000. NRCS is mandated to
support these programs, which means they will have to fund them from
their Conservation Operations account. This leaves a great shortfall
for any assistance to anyone NOT enrolled in a program.
It is imperative that the TA for these mandatory programs be funded
at the required TA levels.
______

Prepared Statement of the Seminole Tribe of Florida

The Seminole Tribe of Florida is pleased to submit this statement
regarding the fiscal year 2004 budget for the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) in the Department of Agriculture.
The Seminole Tribe of Florida asks that Congress direct the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to begin final design and
planning activities for the Big Cypress Water Conservation Plan
implementation on the west side of the Big Cypress Reservation. Because
we understand that this committee does not earmark funds in the account
for Conservation Programs, Natural Resources Conservation Service's
(NRCS) Watershed Surveys and Planning (06 account) that funds planning
activities for the Small Watershed Program, as authorized by Public Law
83-566, we request that the following language be included in the
committee's report: ``The Committee expects the Department to provide
financial and/or technical assistance for the Big Cypress Reservation
Water Conservation project (FL) as it contributes to Everglades
restoration.'' The Tribe has worked with the NRCS in Florida for 7
years to develop this small watershed project as a part of the Tribe's
overall Everglades Restoration Initiative. The results of this small
watershed project will complement the joint effort of the Tribe and the
Corps of Engineers to complete the Initiative.

The Seminole Tribe of Florida
The Seminole Tribe lives in the Florida Everglades. The Big Cypress
Reservation is located in the western basins, directly north of the Big
Cypress National Preserve. The Everglades provide many Seminole Tribal
members with their livelihood. Traditional Seminole cultural,
religious, and recreational activities, as well as commercial
endeavors, are dependent on a healthy Everglades ecosystem. In fact,
the Tribe's identity is so closely linked to the land that Tribal
members believe that if the land dies, so will the Tribe.
During the Seminole Wars of the 19th Century, the Tribe found
protection in the hostile Everglades. But for this harsh environment
filled with sawgrass and alligators, the Seminole Tribe of Florida
would not exist today. Once in the Everglades, Seminoles learned how to
use the natural system for support without harm to the environment that
sustained them. For example, the native dwelling, the chickee, is made
of cypress logs and palmetto fronds and protects its inhabitants from
the sun and rain, while allowing maximum circulation for cooling. When
a chickee has outlived its useful life, the cypress and palmetto return
to the earth to nourish the soil.
In response to social challenges within the Tribe, Tribal elders
provided guidance. Tribal elders directed the Tribe's leadership to
look to the land, for when the land was ill, the Tribe would soon be
ill as well. When looking at the land, the leadership saw the
Everglades in decline and recognized that the Tribe had to help
mitigate the impacts of man on this natural system. At the same time,
tribal members acknowledged that this land must sustain the Tribe and
its culture. The clear message from the Tribal elders and the land
called for a way of life to preserve the land and the Tribe. Tribal
members must be able to work and sustain themselves. Tribal leadership
needs to protect the land and the animals, while also protecting Tribal
farmers and ranchers.
Recognizing the needs of the land and the people, the Tribe, along
with its consultants, designed a plan to mitigate the harm to the land
and water systems within the Reservation while ensuring a sustainable
future for the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The restoration plan will
allow Tribal members to continue their farming and ranching activities
while improving water quality and restoring natural hydroperiod to
large portions of the native lands on the Reservation and ultimately,
positively effecting the Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades
National Park.
The Seminole Tribe's project addresses the environmental
degradation wrought by decades of Federal flood control construction
and polluted urban and other agricultural runoff. The interrupted sheet
flow and hydroperiod have stressed native species and encouraged the
spread of exotic species. Nutrient-laden runoff has supported the rapid
spread of cattails, which choke out the periphyton algae mat and
sawgrass necessary for the success of the wet/dry cycle that supports
the wildlife of the Everglades.
The Seminole Tribe designed an Everglades Restoration project that
reflects the need to live off of the land while minimizing impacts on
the Everglades. The Seminole Tribe is committed to improving the water
quality and flows on the Big Cypress Reservation. The Tribe already has
committed significant resources to the design and construction of this
project and to its water quality data collection and monitoring system.
The Tribe is willing to continue its efforts and to commit more
resources, for its cultural survival is at stake.

Small Watershed Project on Big Cypress
As a part of the Tribe's Everglades Restoration Initiative, the
Tribe completed a water conservation plan for the design and
construction of surface water management systems to remove phosphorus,
convey and store irrigation water, improve flood control, and rehydrate
the Big Cypress National Preserve. This water conservation plan has
been permitted for construction under the Clean Water Act Section 404
program.
Through the Corps of Engineers (COE) critical project program
authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, the Tribe is
building part of that water conservation plan. The first phase of the
critical project constructs a conveyance canal system to supplement and
improve the existing system; this construction is nearly complete. The
balance of the critical project will construct water storage and
treatment areas on the east side of the Reservation.
Over the last 7 years, the Tribe has enjoyed the support of the
Florida State Conservationist and the Florida staff of the NRCS in the
development of a small watershed project to address some needs
identified in the water conservation plan. While some preliminary
planning has been completed, an existing funding commitment prevented
commencement of the small watershed project. In fiscal year 2004, both
the Tribe and the NRCS in Florida are prepared to begin planning of
water storage and treatment areas on the west side of the Reservation.
To do so, Congress must appropriate the initial funding.
While all the project component options have not been fully vetted,
the cost estimates range from downward from $34.6 million. This project
is approved to operate with a 75 percent Federal and 25 percent Tribal
cost share. The timing of the design and construction are dependent on
the funding stream.

Conclusion
Everglades restoration is a well-recognized national priority. The
Tribe's goal of sustainable agriculture is consistent with the goals of
the NRCS and the restoration activities in South Florida. The NRCS's
support of the Tribe's conservation measures in the past, along with
the implementation of future programs, will make a significant impact
on the Big Cypress Reservation and the South Florida Ecosystem.
Through its assistance to the Tribe, NRCS has provided valuable
technical assistance to date. Beginning in fiscal year 1999, NRCS has
provided programmatic support through EQIP and WRP, which is
anticipated to continue. Additional programmatic assistance through the
small watershed program will provide the needed design and construction
to complete the water conservation plan. None of the joint objectives
of the Tribe and the NRCS can be accomplished, however, without
sufficient funding.
The Tribe has demonstrated its economic commitment to the
Everglades Restoration effort; the Tribe is asking the Federal
Government to also participate in that effort. This effort benefits not
just the Seminole Tribe, but all Floridians who depend on a reliable
supply of clean, fresh water flowing out of the Everglades, and all
Americans whose lives are enriched by this unique national treasure.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the request of the
Seminole Tribe of Florida. The Tribe will provide additional
information upon request.
______

Prepared Statement of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation

We appreciate the support this Subcommittee has provided to the
Animal Care Program of APHIS and respectfully request that the current
appropriations for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act and Horse
Protection Act be maintained for fiscal year 2004 to ensure that these
laws passed by Congress are being carried out effectively.

$15.2 Million for APHIS/Animal Care's Enforcement of the Animal Welfare
Act
The Animal Welfare Act is the chief Federal law for the protection
of animals. The USDA seeks compliance with its minimum standards for
the care and treatment of animals during transportation and at the more
than 10,000 sites of dealers, research, testing and teaching
facilities, zoos, circuses, carriers (airlines, motor freight lines and
other shipping businesses) and handlers (ground freight handlers).
Nearly half of the facilities that are visited are found to be
noncompliant. Facilities with serious deficiencies require
reinspections to ensure that corrective action is taken. Our review of
inspection reports shows an inability of inspectors to make the needed
reinspections; they are unable to reinspect because of a lack of
sufficient funds.
In 1966 the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act (later renamed the Animal
Welfare Act) was adopted in an effort to prevent the sale of lost or
stolen pets into research. Nevertheless, this has continued to be a
serious problem. In an attempt to address this problem, in the mid-
1990s Animal Care instituted a policy of conducting quarterly
inspections of random source dealers. Since stepping up its enforcement
in this area (which has come at the expense of inspections conducted
elsewhere), USDA has revoked 11 dealer licenses and imposed over
$500,000 in fines. The number of random source (USDA licensed Class B)
dealers supplying dogs and cats to research has dropped from 104 to 23.
This example illustrates the value of frequent, unannounced
inspections of licensees and registrants. Increasing the number of
inspections will ensure effective compliance with the law.
The 1985 amendment to the AWA mandates at least one inspection per
year of all registered research facilities. A vigorous inspection
program is vital to maintaining public confidence in the quality of
research and ensuring the humane treatment of research animals. With
the need to evaluate performance, as well as engineering, standards,
each inspection is extremely time-consuming and labor intensive.
AC will be able to continue its searches for unlicensed/
unregistered facilities, an important effort because failure to obtain
licensure or registration is a widespread problem with many entities
purposefully evading AC and the requirements of the AWA. The area most
frequently ignored for lack of sufficient funds has been inspection of
airlines. Continued funding will permit AC to conduct an adequate
number of inspections of airlines in an effort to protect against the
injury, loss or death of animals being transported by air and to help
meet the requirements of the recently adopted Federal Aviation
Administration amendment for safe transport of animals by air.
Continued funding at the fiscal year 2003 level will permit AC to
maintain its field force of 99 veterinary and lay inspectors. It is
vital that the number of inspectors be maintained.

$500 Thousand for APHIS/Animal Care's Enforcement of the Horse
Protection Act
More than 30 years have passed since the Horse Protection Act was
adopted by Congress, yet soring of Tennessee Walking Horses continues
to be a widespread problem. Soring is defined by APHIS as ``the
application of any chemical or mechanical agent used on any limb of a
horse or any practice inflicted upon the horse that can be expected to
cause it physical pain or distress when moving.'' Horses are sored to
produce an exaggerated gait.
The most effective methods of reducing the showing of horses who
have been sored is to have Animal Care (AC) inspectors present at the
shows and to increase the penalties assessed to violators of the law.
AC has been restricted to attending only about 10 percent of horse
shows because of shortage of funds. Unfortunately, the total of
penalties assessed for violation of the law have dropped to a
negligible amount. Unless 1. funding is provided to enable AC to attend
more events and 2. increased penalties are assessed, the industry will
continue to defy the law with impunity.
Lack of financial support has made it necessary for Animal Care to
rely heavily on the industry to assume responsibility for enforcement
of the law. This is the same industry that has turned a blind eye to
compliance with the law since 1970! ``Designated Qualified Persons''
(DQPs) are the ``inspectors'' from industry who are supposed to assist
AC in identifying sore horses and pursuing action against the
individuals who are responsible. The history of the DQPs reveals their
failure to achieve the level of enforcement of the unbiased, well-
trained, professional inspectors who work for AC. Following is data for
horses shown with pads on their front feet to accentuate their gait: in
calendar year 2000 (the most recent year for which such information is
available), the rate at which DQPs turned down these horses for soring
was 2.4 percent. The turndown rate was 39.1 percent, when government
inspectors were present to oversee the activities of the DQPs.
An appropriation of at least $500,000 is essential to permit AC to
maintain a modest level of compliance with the Horse Protection Act.
Further, it is essential that penalties be increased and more widely
assessed for violators.

Congress Needs to Provide Increased Oversight of Wildlife Services
Operations and Research
Wildlife Services (WS) needs to utilize a variety of tools for
management of wildlife under its purview. However, it is essential that
these tools are effective and publicly acceptable.
WS needs to phase out of use of steel jaw leghold traps. Leghold
traps slam shut with bone-crushing force on the limbs of their victims,
tearing ligaments and tendons, severing toes and causing excruciating
pain. These traps, opposed by the vast majority of Americans, have been
condemned as ``inhumane'' by the American Veterinary Medical
Association, the American Animal Hospital Association and the World
Veterinary Association.
The European Union (E.U.) banned use of the barbaric steel jaw
leghold trap so that 88 countries now prohibit their use. Nobly, the EU
went a step further; the EU law also prohibits import of furs from
countries that use steel jaw traps. On December 11, 1997, in response
to this European law, the U.S. Trade Representative reached an
``Understanding'' with the EU in which the United States agreed to end
use of ``all jaw-type leghold restraining traps'' by 2002 on muskrat
and nutria and to phase out use of ``conventional steel-jawed leghold
restraining traps'' by 2004. WS has the responsibility of complying
with this U.S. obligation by ending its use of these barbaric devices.
WS should pursue no further testing of leghold traps as this would
be an extremely wasteful and cruel use of taxpayer money. Previously,
funds designated for trap research were merely passed on to a
nongovernmental organization to utilize as it saw fit, without
involvement from WS. If funds are allocated for trap testing, WS should
conduct the research since the agency has the appropriate technical
expertise.
Further, WS should adopt a policy of checking all restraining traps
within a 24-hour period. A wealth of scientific studies documents the
fact that the longer an animal is in a restraining trap, the greater
the injury. For this reason, the majority of states have a daily trap
check requirement. Animals should not be subjected to long-drawn out
pain because of a failure to assume the responsibility of carefully
checking traps every day. This policy will help reduce the trauma
experienced by non-target animals, too, ensuring that more of these
animals will be able to be released alive.
______

Prepared Statement of the Sun Grant Initiative

THE NATIONAL NEED FOR BIOENERGY AND BIOPRODUCTS

Energy Security.--As readily accessible domestic sources of
petroleum have waned, the United States has steadily increased its
reliance on imported oil from other nations. The proportion of imported
oil increased from about 30 percent of domestic consumption in 1970 to
about 56 percent in 2000. Evidence that world oil supplies will become
even more limited in the coming decades suggests that alternative
sources of energy and industrial chemicals must be developed as soon as
possible. Bioenergy resources can be further developed in ways that
complement and augment petroleum energy resources, helping to reduce
our dependence on imported oils while helping constrain the costs of
energy for American industries and consumers.
Farm Security.--Farmers have been experiencing economic hardships
throughout the 1990's and continue today, primarily because of
excessive production of core commodity crops. The hardships have flowed
throughout rural America and a devastating exodus to urban centers has
resulted. Viable alternatives and diversity are needed in agriculture
to bolster the nation's independent farm families. Bioenergy and
bioproducts produced on American farms represent an opportunity to both
reduce dependence on imported oil while providing a significant source
of income to American farmers.
New Industries.--Imported oil is an important feedstock for
numerous uses other than energy and transportation fuels. Contemporary
plastics, synthetic fibers, lubricants, solvents, paints and numerous
other common products depend on petroleum as a feedstock. In the
future, agriculture will produce biobased feedstocks for production of
these products as well as many other non-food uses. Agriculture will
also be integral to manufacturing pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, building
materials, biocatalysts, and numerous other biobased products. The
development of biobased products will complement, augment, and be
integrated with the petroleum industry.
Rural Economic Development.--New biobased industries will benefit
not only agricultural producers but will also stimulate economic
development in the surrounding rural communities. In many cases,
transportation logistics and infrastructure requirements will require
that new biobased industries be physically located in rural
communities--new capital investments and economic stimulation will stay
in the rural community! A biobased economy will revitalize rural
America.
Environmental Protection.--The use of renewable bioenergy and the
production of many biobased products will have numerous benefits for
the environment. The increased use of renewable bioenergy will help
reduce greenhouse gases and will help U.S. communities and industries
improve air quality while remaining economically viable and
competitive. Products that were once ``wastes'' can now become
resources and ingredients in the development of new bioproducts. In
turn, bioproducts can be designed to be biodegradable, further reducing
the ``waste stream'' and reducing the demand for trash disposal land
fills.
New Science and Engineering Technologies.--The latest scientific
and engineering breakthroughs will be brought to bear on the challenge
of moving to a bio-based economy. For example, genomics,
nanobiotechology, and new computer modeling technologies will be
utilized to improve our technical understanding of plant biochemistry,
to develop new enzymatic processes and new materials for bioenergy
production and the development of new bioproducts.

THE SUN GRANT INITIATIVE

Land Grant Universities.--Today, land grant universities serve
agriculture by implementing research, extension, and educational
programs to benefit agricultural producers and consumers, to assist
rural families and communities, and to conserve the world's natural
resources. Clearly, agriculture will play an important role in
providing power, fuels, and biobased products for America. Because of
the unique position land grant universities have in science, service
and education, it is critical that they are proactively involved in
creating the biobased economy. Over the past several years, land grant
universities have been working to develop a new model for harnessing
the capacities of the distributed agricultural research and education
system into a national network that can work in ready partnership with
the Federal agencies to help reach national bioenergy goals, which has
led to the development of the Sun Grant Initiative.
The Sun Grant Mission.--The mission of the Sun Grant Initiative is
to (1) enhance national energy security through development,
distribution and implementation of biobased energy technologies, (2)
promote diversification and the economic viability of America's
agriculture through land grant based research, extension, and education
programs in renewable energy and biobased products, and (3) promote
opportunities for biobased economic diversification and the development
of new biobased industries in rural communities.
Centers of Excellence and a National Network.--A network of five
land grant universities are serving as regional Sun Grant Centers of
Excellence (Figure 1). The universities include South Dakota State
University, Oklahoma State University, the University of Tennessee--
Knoxville, Cornell University, and Oregon State University. Federal
funds will be shared equally among each of the regions. As Federal
funds become available, up to 25 percent of the funds will be utilized
at each center to enhance their abilities to develop model research,
extension, and educational programs on agriculture-based renewable
energy technologies and biobased industries located in rural
communities. The balance of the funds in each region will be awarded
competitively among all land grant universities in the region, drawing
on the expertise of all land grant universities to address national
priorities at the regional level.

Figure 1.--The five founding Sun Grant Centers and their respective
regions.

These regional programs will embrace the multi-state, multi-
function, multi-disciplinary integrated approach that is at the heart
of the land grant method of addressing problems. The centers will
interface their activities with DOE research laboratories at Oak Ridge,
TN (ORNL, Oak Ridge National Laboratory) and Golden, CO (NREL, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory).

National Priorities
The Sun Grant Initiative programs will revitalize rural
communities, enhance the nation's energy security and improve our soil,
water, and air. The primary challenges that must be faced include:
--The emergence of agriculturally based bio-industries that can
coexist with and complement petroleum based industries.
--Developing biobased industries that improve the environment and
protect air, water, soil, and other natural resources.
--Developing biobased industries that diversify American agriculture
and complement food production.
--Developing industries that provide opportunities for the growth and
prosperity of rural America.
The transition to agriculturally-based bio-industries will create
economic opportunities for other sectors of the U.S. economy through
creation of high-tech companies and jobs. Through the Sun Grant
Initiative, the United States will continue to be a world leader in
technology and innovation for future high-tech commerce and trade. We
will not only produce biomass feedstocks, we will also lead the world
in the technologies and the intellectual property that makes this
transition to a biobased economy possible.

Regional Priorities
During the development of the Sun Grant Initiative a series of
regional workshops were held with agricultural, industry and community
leaders. Priority needs were identified for bioenergy and bioproducts
projects within each region. The unique structure of the Sun Grant
Initiative will enable the land grant universities to address national
issues of concern to the Federal agencies in the context of regional
and local needs and circumstances.
relation to the sun grant initiative to federal agency biomass programs
The Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 established an
Interagency Board to coordinate the biomass-related programs within and
among Federal departments and agencies. It is co-chaired by the
Departments of Energy and Agriculture. Other member agencies include:
the Department of Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, National
Science Foundation, Office of Science and Technology Policy and the
Office of the Federal Environmental Executive. The Act also established
an Advisory Committee to advise the Secretaries of Energy and
Agriculture and the Interagency Board on the future direction of
biomass research and development investments. The Advisory Committee,
now in its third year of activity, consists of 31 members from
industry, academia, non-profit organizations, and the agricultural and
forestry sectors, who are experts in their respective fields. In
December of 2002, the Biomass Research and Development Technical
Advisory Committee released a science ``roadmap'' outlining recommended
priorities for the development of biomass technologies in the United
States. In addition, Section 9008 of the Farm Security and Rural
Development Act of 2002 provided for a reauthorization of the funding
for the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 and provided
funding to support biomass production. Building on these several
legislative authorities, the Department of Energy and the Natural
Resources Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture are
collaborating in the development and implementation of a Biomass
Research and Development Initiative to address the priorities
identified in the roadmap.
One of the remaining challenges in developing bioenergy and
bioproducts technologies is that they have to be developed as a
complete system to be cost effective and economically viable. Many new
biobased businesses have failed because they only addressed one part of
a new biobased economy. In order for farmers to increase production of
a needed biofuels feedstock materials they need to be assured of a
steady demand. In order for bio-industries to develop a new product,
they have to be assured of a steady supply of biobased feedstock
materials. The rate limiting cost in developing biobased feedstock is
often the cost of shipment; it may be most cost effective to process
feedstock within a fifty mile radius of the site where it was grown,
which in turn requires a distributed network of bioprocesses or
generators. The generators may not break even unless they are also used
to co generate heat or unless they feed energy back into local energy
grids. The Sun Grant Initiative provides a means for the Department of
Energy and the Department of Agriculture to access the research and
education expertise of the land grant university system across the
country to develop new technologies and education programs. The
structure of the Sun Grant Initiative will enable the Departments to
``put all the pieces'' together to create comprehensive regional scale
projects that can address multiple real world production needs
simultaneously. The Sun Grant Initiative complements and completes the
mix of legislative and funding tools that support biomass research and
development.

LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS

Legislation to authorize the Sun Grant Initiative was developed in
2002. The proposed legislative language defines the regional Centers of
Excellence and the network of collaborating universities, as well as
the mechanism for apportioning and distributing funds described in this
testimony. The proposed legislative language will authorize funding for
the Sun Grant Initiative at the level of $100 million. There is bi-
partisan support for introducing and passing this language in 2003. It
is our understanding that there will be communications from leading
Senate offices to the Committee indicating support for moving this
initiative forward and initiating start-up funding in fiscal year 2004.

FUNDING REQUEST

We request initial start-up funding of $20 million for the Sun
Grant Initiative in fiscal year 2004. We are requesting that funding be
provided by the Senate Appropriations Energy and Water Development
Subcommittee through the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
programs of the Department of Energy, in order to augment and expand
the Department of Energy's biomass and bioenergy research and
development programs. In order to facilitate collaboration and
enhancement of programs in the Department of Agriculture, we are also
recommending that funding of $1 million be provided in fiscal year 2004
through the USDA's Cooperative State Research, Extension and Education
Service.
______

Prepared Statement of the U.S. Apple Association

The U.S. Apple Association (U.S. Apple) appreciates the opportunity
to provide this testimony on behalf of our nation's apple industry.
Our testimony will focus on the following three areas: the Market
Access Program (MAP); Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
implementation; and Agricultural Research Service (ARS) funding.
U.S. Apple is the national trade association representing all
segments of the apple industry. Members include 40 state and regional
apple associations representing the 9,000 apple growers throughout the
country as well as more than 500 individual firms involved in the apple
business. Our mission is to provide the means for all segments of the
U.S. apple industry to join in appropriate collective efforts to
profitably produce and market apples and apple products.
Market Access Program (MAP).--The U.S. Apple Association (U.S.
Apple) encourages members of Congress to support $125 million in MAP
funding for the coming fiscal year (fiscal year 2004), which is the
level authorized in the farm bill.
The apple industry receives roughly $3 million annually in export
development funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Market
Access Program (MAP). These funds are matched by grower dollars to
promote apples in more than 20 countries throughout the world. Since
this program's inception in 1986, the U.S apple industry has expanded
fresh apple exports by 194 percent, thanks in large part to the foreign
promotions made possible by this program. One-quarter of U.S. fresh
apple production is exported, with an annual value of roughly $370
million.
The U.S. apple industry faces keen competition around the globe
from competitors who receive significant government funds for generic
promotions. The governments of our foreign competitors spend
approximately $500 million on export promotion and market development.
It has become increasingly difficult for U.S. exporters to compete with
European and Chinese producers who receive massive government
assistance. Increased funding for this critical program will assist
U.S. apple producers to better compete and revive export demand in
countries recently hit by adverse economic conditions.
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Implementation.--U.S. Apple
strongly supports full funding for the following programs intended to
facilitate fair FQPA implementation and to offset its anticipated
negative impact on apple growers and processors.
Specifically, U.S. Apple supports the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's following budget requests.
--$15 million for the Pesticide Data Program, administered by the
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS);
--$8.0 million for the National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS) pesticide-usage surveys;
--$2.6 million for the Office of Pest Management Policy administered
by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS);
--$3.7 million for minor-use registration of crop protection tools
(IR-4) administered by ARS;
--$7.2 million for area-wide Integrated Pest Management research
administered by ARS;
--$13.5 million for the Integrated Pest Management Research Grant
Program administered by the Cooperative State Research,
Extension and Education Service (CSREES);
--$10.8 million for minor-use registration of crop protection tools
(IR-4) administered by CSREES; and
--$12.5 million for the Pest Management Alternatives Program,
Regional Pest Management Centers, Crops at Risk and Risk
Avoidance and Mitigation Program also administered by CSREES.
National Tree Fruit Technology Roadmap.--U.S. Apple urges the
Committee to encourage USDA to continue to work with the tree fruit
industry by completing the national technology roadmap process and
developing a national research strategy.
Worldwide apple production increased by 112 percent between 1990
and 2001, while U.S. apple production grew by 11 percent during this
same period. This dramatic increase in global apple production
continues to threaten the profitability of America's apple growers.
Global oversupply, subsidized foreign competition and unfairly priced
imports have caused apple prices to decline in recent years, while
regulatory, production and distribution costs are steadily increasing.
The U.S. apple industry's future survival may depend on its ability to
develop and utilize new technology to decrease costs, while improving
apple quality. Thus, the industry is seeking federal support of a
national research initiative to develop new technology to automate
orchard and fruit handling operations, optimize fruit quality,
nutritional value, and safety, and integrate digital technologies and
communication.
Temperate Fruit Fly Research Position--Yakima, Wash.--U.S. Apple
requests continued funding of $300,000 to conduct critical research at
the USDA-ARS laboratory in Yakima, Wash. on temperate fruit flies, a
major pest of apples.
The Yakima, Wash., USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
facility is conducting research critical to the crop protection needs
of the apple industry. FQPA implementation has reduced the number of
pesticides currently available to growers for the control of pests,
such as cherry fruit fly and apple maggot. Left unchecked, these
temperate fruit flies can be devastating. Thus, research is needed to
develop alternative crop protection methods as growers struggle to cope
with the loss of existing tools. While Congress appropriated $300,000
last fiscal year for this critical research, the administration's
proposed budget for fiscal 2004 rescinds this funding.
Post Harvest Quality Research Position--East Lansing, Mich.--U.S.
Apple requests that the Committee provide continued funding of $309,600
for postharvest-quality research at the ARS laboratory in East Lansing,
Michigan.
The East Lansing, Mich., USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
facility is conducting research critical to the future economic
recovery of the apple industry. Using a series of new sensing
technologies, researchers at this facility are developing techniques
that would allow apple packers to measure the sugar content and
firmness of each apple before it is offered to consumers. Research
indicates consumer purchases will increase when products consistently
meet their expectations, suggesting consumers will eat more apples once
this technology is fully developed and employed by our industry. While
Congress appropriated $309,600 last fiscal year for this critical
research, the administration's proposed budget for fiscal 2004 rescinds
this funding.
Tree Assistance Program (Tap).--U.S. Apple urges Congress to
provide $9.3 million to cover losses beginning in 2000 for the Tree
Assistance Program (TAP).
A recent series of severe weather-related natural disasters that
have taken an enormous economic toll on many of the U.S. apple
industry's most progressive and productive apple producers, who have
lost their orchards to these storms and resulting disease outbreaks.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 re-authorizes the
Tree Assistance Program (TAP), which provides reimbursement for 75
percent of the cost of replanting trees lost to natural disasters up to
$75,000 per producer per year.
The U.S. Apple Association thanks the committee for this
opportunity to present testimony in support of the U.S. apple
industry's federal agricultural funding requests.
______

Prepared Statement of the U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Consortium

Mr. Chairman, we greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide
testimony to you and the Subcommittee, to thank you for your past
support, and to discuss the achievements and opportunities of the U.S.
Marine Shrimp Farming Program.
We would like to bring to your attention the success of the U.S.
Marine Shrimp Farming Consortium and its value to the nation. The
Consortium consists of institutions from seven states: University of
Southern Mississippi/Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, Mississippi; The
Oceanic Institute, Hawaii; Tufts University, Massachusetts; Texas A&M
University, Texas; Waddell Mariculture Center, South Carolina;
University of Arizona, Arizona; and Nicholls State University,
Louisiana. These institutions have made major advances in technology to
support the U.S. shrimp farming industry, and the program's excellent
performance through mufti-state collaboration has been recognized by
the USDA in its recent program reviews. The Consortium is at a point of
opportunity to make significant contributions to building the U.S.
industry, reducing the trade deficit, and satisfying increasing
consumer demand for shrimp. Seafood imports constitute the second
largest trade deficit item for the United States at $7.1 billion, and
shrimp represents approximately half of this deficit.

Accomplishments
The Consortium, in cooperation with private industry, industry
associations and government agencies, has generated new technologies
for producing premium quality marine shrimp at competitive prices. To
date, the program has: (1) established the world's first and currently
most advanced breeding and genetic selection program for marine shrimp;
(2) completed pioneering research and development of advanced
diagnostic tools for disease screening and control; (3) described the
etiology of shrimp diseases associated with viral pathogens; (4)
fostered shrimp production at near-shore, desert, and inland/rural farm
sites; (5) played a lead role in the Joint Subcommittee on
Aquaculture's efforts to assess the threat of globally transported
shrimp pathogens; (6) supplied the U.S. industry with genetically
improved and disease resistant shrimp stocks; (7) developed advanced
technology biosecure shrimp production systems to protect both cultured
and native wild stocks from disease; and (8) developed new feed
formulations to minimize waste generation. These substantial
accomplishments advance the continued growth of our industry, place an
important emphasis on environmental sustainability, and increase market
competitiveness. Judging from the state of our industry today, USMSFP
programs continue to have measurable positive effects. The coastal
industry continues to lead in the production of farm-raised shrimp in
the United States. Recent improvements in farm management practices
have resulted in bumper crops for the industry. The year 2002 resulted
in the largest harvest ever for U.S. farmers at over 12 million pounds.
This is the third consecutive year of record production, and represents
an 107 percent increase in U.S. production over the last nine years.

Industry Vulnerability
While exceptional progress has been made, this emerging and
important industry is continually confronted with new challenges. It
depends on the U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program (USMSFP) for high-
health and improved stocks, disease diagnosis and production
technologies. As a result of the Consortium's support, the U.S.
industry has maintained relative stability, while other countries have
had major losses in their production, due to diseases and environmental
problems. Disease losses, due to exotic viruses in Asia and Latin
America during the past six years, have approached $7 billion U.S.
There have been no outbreaks of notifiable disease in the United States
during the last four years, and a commensurate increase in shrimp
production during the same period. With reliable protection in place,
we have also seen a commensurate geographic expansion of the industry
within the United States. A broader industry base, while increasing
production through the addition of new farms, also provides additional
protection to the industry by geographically isolating different
regional sectors of the industry in the event of disease outbreaks or
natural disaster. Significant amounts of shrimp are now produced from
wide parts of the South, with farms now operational in South Carolina,
Florida, Alabama and Texas. Arizona and Hawaii have also greatly
expanded production during the same period.
While significant progress has been made in risk assessment and
risk management with visible success to further improve the
competitiveness of the U.S. industry, the industry and the USMSFP must
remain constantly vigilant. In addition to providing significant input
on the development of national and international regulatory standards
for shrimp farmers, important service work for government agencies and
NGOs keeps us continuously appraised of new developments pertaining to
emerging regulations so USMSFP research plans can be kept proactively
responsive to dynamic shifts in industry needs.

Industry Independence
As a result of the work of the Consortium, investor confidence is
increasing. In addition to supporting today's industry, advanced
biosecure shrimp production systems are allowing the expansion of
shrimp farming into near-shore, inland/rural and desert sites, away
from the environmentally sensitive coastal zone. Importantly, these new
production technologies produce the highest quality shrimp at world
competitive prices, consume U.S. grains as feed, and pose no threat to
the environment. Shrimp farming is the newest agricultural industry for
the United States, and USDA/CSREES has suggested that our program
represents a model program for resolving important problems and
capturing opportunities in both agriculture and aquaculture. Clearly,
the U.S. shrimp farming industry has emerged from the early 1990s with
a larger and more diverse industry for the new millennium.
To begin completion of our remaining tasks, an increase in the
current funding level from $4.186 million to $5 million is being
requested. Allocation of $5 million per year for the next few years to
work in cooperation with the private sector, to support existing
efforts, and to build this new industry with its associated jobs and
economic benefits is in the best interests of the nation.
Mr. Chairman, the U.S. shrimp farming industry and our Consortium
deeply appreciate the support of the Committee and respectfully ask for
a favorable consideration of this request.
______

Prepared Statement of the United States Telecom Association

SUMMARY OF REQUEST

Project Involved.--Telecommunications Loan Programs Administered by
the Rural Utilities Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Actions Proposed.--Supporting RUS loan levels and the associated
funding subsidy for the cost of money, Rural Telephone Bank and loan
guarantee programs in fiscal year 2004 in the same amount as loan
levels specified in the fiscal year 2003 Agriculture Appropriations
Act, supporting loans in the hardship program at the level requested in
the budget. Opposing the Administration's proposal to not fund Rural
Telephone Bank loans in fiscal year 2004. Also supporting an extension
of the language removing the 7 percent interest rate cap on cost of
money loans. Also supporting an extension of the prohibition against
the transfer of Rural Telephone Bank funds to the general fund.
Opposing the proposal contained in the budget to transfer funds from
the unobligated balances of the liquidating account of the Rural
Telephone Bank for the Bank's administrative expenses. Supporting
continued funding, as requested in the President's budget, in the
amount of $25 million in distance learning and telemedicine loan and
grant authority and $2 million to finance broadband transmission and
local dial-up Internet service in rural areas. Requesting clarification
that all rural communities under 20,000 population will qualify for
loans in fiscal year 2004 under the new broadband loan program.
Opposing the budget request seeking replacement of the $20 million in
mandatory funding provided in last year's Farm Act for direct loans for
broadband deployment with less than half that amount of discretionary
funding authority in fiscal year 2004.
I am Walter B. McCormick, Jr., President and CEO of The United
States Telecom Association (USTA), the nation's oldest trade
organization for the local exchange carrier industry. USTA's carrier
members provide a full array of voice, data and video services over
wire and wireless networks. I submit this testimony in the interests of
the members of USTA and their subscribers.
USTA members firmly believe that the targeted assistance offered by
a strong RUS telecommunications loan program remains essential to a
healthy and growing rural telecommunications industry that contributes
to the provision of universal telephone service. We appreciate the
strong support this Committee has provided for the telecommunications
program since its inception in 1949 and look forward to a vigorous
program for the future.

A CHANGING INDUSTRY

As Congress recognized through passage of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, telecommunications in the United States is in the midst of
the most significant changes any industry has ever undergone. Both the
technological underpinnings and the regulatory atmosphere are
dramatically different and changing at an extraordinarily rapid pace.
Without system upgrades, rural customers will be left out of the
emerging information revolution.
The need for modernization of the telecommunications technology
employed by RUS borrower rural telecommunications companies has never
been greater. In addition to upgrading switching capability to allow
new services to be extended to rural subscribers, it is crucially
important that rural areas be included in the nationwide drive for
greater bandwidth capacity. In order to provide higher speed data
services, such as Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) connections to the
Internet, outside plant must be modernized and new electronics must be
placed in switching offices. With current technology, DSL services
cannot be provided to customers located on lines more than three miles
from the switching office. Rural areas have a significant percentage of
relatively long loops and are therefore particularly difficult to serve
with higher speed connections. Rural telecommunications companies are
doing their best to restructure their networks to shorten loops so that
DSL may be provided, but this is an expensive proposition and may not
be totally justified by market conditions. However, these services are
important for rural economic development, distance learning and
telemedicine. RUS-provided financial incentives for additional
investment encourage rural telecommunications companies to build
facilities which allow advanced services to be provided. The
externalities measured in terms of economic development and human
development more than justify this investment in the future by the
federal government.
Greater bandwidth and switching capabilities are crucial
infrastructure elements which will allow rural businesses, schools and
health care facilities to take advantage of the other programs
available to them as end users. The money spent on having the most
modern and sophisticated equipment available at the premises of
businesses, schools or clinics is wasted if the local
telecommunications company cannot afford to build facilities that
quickly transport and switch the large amounts of data that these
entities generate. RUS funding enhances the synergies among the FCC and
RUS programs targeted at improving rural education and health care
through telecommunications.
The RUS program helps to offset regulatory uncertainties related to
universal service support, interstate access revenues and
interconnection rules with a reliable source of fairly priced, fixed-
rate long term capital. After all, RUS is a voluntary program designed
to provide incentives for local telecommunications companies to build
the facilities essential to economic growth.
RUS endures because it is a brilliantly conceived public-private
partnership in which the borrowers are the conduits for the federal
government benefits that flow to rural telephone customers, the true
beneficiaries of the RUS program. The government's contribution is
leveraged by the equity, technical expertise and dedication of local
telecommunications companies. The small amount of government capital
involved is more than paid back through a historically perfect
repayment record by telecommunications borrowers, as well as the
additional tax revenues generated by the jobs and economic development
resulting from the provision and upgrading of telecommunications
infrastructure. RUS is the ideal government program--it generates more
revenues than it costs, it provides incentives where the market does
not for private companies to invest in infrastructure promoting needed
rural economic development, it allows citizens to have access to
services which can mean the difference between life and death, and it
has never lost a nickel of taxpayer money.

RECOMMENDATIONS

For fiscal year 2004, this Committee should continue the loan
levels and necessary associated subsidy amounts for the RUS cost of
money, Rural Telephone Bank and guaranteed telecommunications loan
programs that it recommended for fiscal year 2003, and which were
signed into law. These levels, as well as supporting loans in the
hardship program at the level requested in the budget, would maintain
our members' ability to serve the nation's telecommunications needs,
maintain universal service and bring advanced telecommunications
services to rural America.
USTA strenuously objects to the recommendation in the
Administration's budget to not fund Rural Telephone Bank loans in
fiscal year 2004. The proposal is fundamentally flawed. The RTB's
mission is far from complete. Loans made today are to provide state of
the art telecommunications technology in rural areas. If no bank loans
were made in fiscal year 2004, the budgetary outlay savings would be
minimal, because RTB loans are funded over a multiyear period.
Moreover, because of the minimum statutory interest rate of 5 percent,
the RTB stands an excellent opportunity of actually generating a profit
for the government!
The Administration budget proposes that funds be transferred from
the unobligated balances of the Bank's liquidating account to fund the
Bank's administrative expenses, instead of those expenses being funded
through an appropriation from the general fund of the Treasury. This
proposal would not result in budgetary savings. As it has in previous
years, this Committee should specifically reject this recommendation.
For a number of years, through the appropriations process, Congress
has eliminated the seven percent ``cap'' placed on the insured cost-of-
money loan program. The elimination of the cap should continue. If long
term Treasury interest rates exceeded the 7 percent ceiling contained
in the authorizing act, the subsidy would not be adequate to support
the program at the authorized level. This would be extremely disruptive
and hinder the program from accomplishing its statutory goals.
Accordingly, USTA supports continuation of the elimination of the seven
percent cap on cost-of-money insured loans in fiscal year 2004. The
Committee should also continue to protect the legitimate ownership
interests of the Class B and C stockholders in the Bank's assets by
continuing to prohibit a ``sweep'' of any unobligated balance in the
bank's liquidating account that is in excess of current requirements
funds into the general fund.

Recommended Loan Levels
USTA recommends that the telephone loan program loan levels for
fiscal year 2004 be set as follows:

[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUS Insured Hardship Loans (5 percent).................. $145
RUS Insured Cost-of-Money Loans......................... 300
Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) Loans........................ 175
Loan Guarantees......................................... 120
---------------
Total............................................. 740
------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOANS AND GRANTS FOR TELEMEDICINE, DISTANCE LEARNING, INTERNET ACCESS
AND BROADBAND

USTA supports the continuation of $25 million for distance learning
and telemedicine, as provided in the President's budget. USTA also
supports making available $2 million in additional funds for loans and
grants to finance broadband transmission and local dial up access to
the Internet in rural areas. RUS was founded on the notion that rural
Americans should have no lesser services and facilities for telephone
service as those living in more densely populated, lower cost areas. As
we move into the Information Age with the tremendous potential of the
Internet to increase productivity, economic development, education and
medicine, such funds can help continue the historic mission of RUS to
support the extension of vital new services to rural America.

BROADBAND LOANS UNDER THE 2002 FARM ACT (PUBLIC LAW 101-171)

Last year the Congress recognized the tremendous potential of
broadband technology to enhance human and economic development in rural
areas by providing mandatory funding of loans for the deployment of
such technology in rural areas. This funding was included in last
year's Farm Act in the amount of $20 million. USTA opposes the
Administration's request to cancel this in 2004 and replace it with
less than half that amount, $9.1 billion, in discretionary authority.
The capital intensive nature of the telecommunications industry,
particularly with respect to implementation of broadband, requires a
stable and predictable source of capital. Any disruption to the multi-
year authority adopted last year by Congress would greatly discourage
use of this program and deny rural consumers the benefits of services
provided over broadband technology.
The Committee's bill should include language to assure that all
communities in the United States with a population of less than 20,000
will qualify for loans under the RUS broadband loan program in fiscal
year 2004. The importance of the availability of broadband in rural
areas cannot be overstated. Broadband is the future of
telecommunications and rural areas cannot be and should not be denied
its benefits. Unfortunately, many rural areas will not be eligible for
this program due to a technical defect in the enabling act eligibility
provision (new section 601 of Title VI of the Rural Electrification Act
of 1936). Although the criteria in subsection (A) demonstrates the
commitment of Congress to assure that the program will allow all
communities in the United States with a population of less than 20,000
to qualify for broadband loans, subsection (B) seeks to exclude from
program eligibility any area that ``is not located in an area
designated as a standard metropolitan statistical area,'' even though
its population is less than 20,000. ``Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area'' has not been a term recognized by the Bureau of the Census since
1990. If not corrected, this technical defect could deny up to 40
percent of otherwise eligible rural communities access to a program
designed to accelerate deployment of broadband technology in rural
areas.

CONCLUSION

Our members take pleasure and pride in reminding the Committee that
the RUS telecommunications program continues its perfect record of no
defaults in over a half century of existence. RUS telecommunications
borrowers take seriously their obligations to their government, their
nation and their subscribers. They will continue to invest in our rural
communities, use government loan funds carefully and judiciously, and
do their best to assure the continued affordability of
telecommunications services in rural America. Our members have
confidence that the Committee will continue to recognize the importance
of assuring a strong and effective RUS Telecommunications Program
through authorization of sufficient loan levels.
______

Prepared Statement of the Utah Division of Water Resources

This testimony is in support of funding for the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Program. As the lead agency designated by
Congress for salinity control in the Colorado River Basin, Utah hereby
requests funding in the amount of $17,500,000 for fiscal year 2004 to
implement the needed and authorized program for the Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). Failure to appropriate
these funds will result in significant economic damage in the United
States and Mexico.
The program authorized by the Congress in 1995 has proven to be
very successful and cost-effective. Proposals from the public and
private sector to implement salinity control strategies have far
exceeded the available funding and Reclamation has a backlog of
proposals. Reclamation continues to select the best and most cost-
effective proposals. Funds are available for the Colorado River Basin
States' cost sharing for the level of federal funding requested. Water
quality improvements accomplished under Title II of the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Act also benefit the quality of water delivered
to Mexico. Although the United States has always met the commitments of
the International Boundary & Water Commission's (Commission) Minute 242
to Mexico with respect to water quality, the United States Section of
the Commission is currently addressing Mexico's request for better
water quality at the International Boundary.
Some of the most cost-effective salinity control opportunities
occur when the USBR can improve irrigation delivery systems at the same
time that the USDA's program is working with landowners (irrigators) to
improve the on-farm irrigation systems. Through the newly authorized
USDA EQIP program, more adequate on-farm funds are available and
adequate USBR funds are needed to maximize the effectiveness of the
effort. Reclamation has received cost-effective proposals to move the
program ahead and the Basin States have funds available to cost-share
up-front.
A salinity control program has been developed by the Colorado River
Basin States with input from the Bureau of Reclamation, the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Bureau of Land Management, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The
plan necessary for controlling salinity and to reduce downstream
damages has been captioned the ``plan of implementation.'' The 2002
Review of Water Quality Standards includes an updated plan of
implementation. The level of appropriation requested in this testimony
is in keeping with the agreed upon plan. If adequate funds are not
appropriated, state and federal agencies involved are in agreement that
damage from the high salt levels in the water will be widespread in the
United States as well as Mexico. The $17,500,000 requested by the Forum
on behalf of the seven Colorado River Basin States is the level of
funding necessary to proceed with Reclamation's portion of the plan of
implementation. Utah urges the Subcommittee to support this level of
funding as set forth in the plan of implementation.
In addition to the funding identified above for the plan of
implementation, Utah also requests the Congress to appropriate
necessary funds needed to continue to maintain and operate salinity
control facilities as they are completed and placed into long-term
operation. Reclamation has completed the Paradox Valley unit which
involves the collection of brines in the Paradox Valley of Colorado and
the injection of those brines into a deep aquifer through an injection
well. The continued operation of this project and other completed
projects will be funded through operation and maintenance funds.
In addition, Utah supports necessary funding to allow for continued
general investigation of the salinity control program. It is important
that Reclamation have planning staff in place, properly funded, so the
progress of the program can be analyzed, coordination between various
Federal and State agencies can be accomplished, and future projects and
opportunities to control salinity can be properly planned to maintain
the water quality standards for salinity so the Basin States can
continue to develop their Compact-apportioned waters of the Colorado
River.
______

Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Management Institute (WMI)

The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) is submitting its comments
on the proposed fiscal 2004 budget for natural resource programs within
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. WMI is a scientific and educational
non-profit organization that is staffed by professional wildlife
biologists and is committed to the sustainable management of wildlife
populations and habitats throughout North America. For several decades
we have worked closely with the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), Farm Service Administration (FSA), Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) and Cooperative State Research, Education
and Extension Services (CREES) to enhance the conservation of wildlife
resources on private lands, to support disease control efforts that
protect free-ranging wildlife, and to promote public stewardship of all
wildlife resources. Our comments on the budgets of these agencies
include the following spending increases of the Administration's
request:

Natural Resources Conservation Service
Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA).--WMI finds that through
congressional and administrative actions during the past several years,
the number of positions at NRCS has fluctuated to the detriment of the
CTA program. The current proposed level of FTE staff years for fiscal
year 2004 is 12,878. This is a 276 FTE (2.2 percent) increase over the
estimated fiscal year 2003 level. However, NRCS presently has a backlog
of farmers and ranchers who have applied for the Farm Bill's
conservation programs but have not yet received any technical
assistance. This demand for CTA will only increase as NRCS starts
implementing two new conservation programs, the Conservation Security
Program and the Grassland Reserve Program, and expanding the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (scheduled for a $1 billion in
fiscal year 2004). Further compounding this problem, is the
Administration's proposed $121,400 cut for the CTA account. Even though
the 2002 Farm Bill established the Technical Service Provider Program
(TSP), NRCS cannot rely on the services of third party vendors to meet
the farmers' and ranchers' demands for technical assistance. It will
take at least three years to develop a seamless delivery system for
TSP. For these reasons, WMI urges your subcommittee to increase the
Administration's request for CTA by $100 million.
Technical Service Providers (TSP).--This program will be of great
assistance to NRCS as it delivers technical assistance to agricultural
producers. However, fisheries and wildlife biologists will need
training to participate as technical service providers, and The
Wildlife Society estimates that it will take $10 million to provide
such training for interested TSP candidates. To the degree that you are
able, WMI asks your subcommittee to appropriate funds for training
activities within The Wildlife Society and American Fisheries Society.
Both organizations are the only societies that certify professionals
within their field but need assistance when addressing the
certification requirements for TSP.
Monitoring and Evaluation.--Commodity groups, water utility
companies, and natural resource professionals (e.g., The Wildlife
Society, National Association of Conservation Districts and university
extension specialists) remain in steadfast agreement with WMI that the
Farm Bill's conservation title must include funding for monitoring and
evaluation. Throughout the Administration and Congress, national
leaders want to get the ``biggest bang for the buck'' when implementing
an enhancement project for soil, water, air, and wildlife on private
lands. Because the 2002 Farm Bill authorizes a $17.1 billion spending
increase for the conservation title, it is imperative that NRCS
establishes an accountability system that focuses on results (i.e.,
outcomes) instead of activities (i.e., outputs). No such system
currently exists. Therefore, WMI proposes the establishment of a
competitive grants process to fund a consortium of non-governmental
organizations, universities, and state agencies that could identify
cost saving practices, program improvements, and future funding
requirements for the Farm Bill's conservation title. Additionally, this
consortium could determine what the environmental and economic values
are for each conservation program. WMI recommends that your
subcommittee dedicate $10 million as mandatory funding for monitoring
and evaluation activities through the proposed consortium of non-USDA
entities. Please note that this is the same funding level that was
requested in the Farm Bill's Managers Report.
Wetlands Reserve Program.--WMI supports the full authorization of
250,000-acres for the Wetlands Reserve Program in fiscal year 2004.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.--WMI does not support the
Administration's $42 million request for the Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program (WHIP). That dollar amount will not allow NRCS to
reduce its current backlog for WHIP while accommodating additional
enrollment in the program. Requests from the Northeast and Western
regions are areas where interest in WHIP is the highest, primarily
because of the areas' land base and specialized farming interests
(e.g., horse ranching, fruit orchards, and dairy farms). Lest
participation in the Farm Bill's conservation programs favor only
agricultural producers in the Midwestern and Southern regions, WMI
urges your subcommittee to appropriate $100 million for WHIP in fiscal
year 2004. And with the matching ability of partners, this request will
let more dollars flow into WHIP, a result that benefits both the
Federal government and private landowner.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program.--WMI supports mandatory
funding of $850 million for the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program in fiscal year 2004. However, during the rulemaking process for
EQIP, WMI asked NRCS to make this program more wildlife friendly. We
trust that this recommendation will be accepted so that additional
benefits can be generated for agricultural landowners and the natural
resource system.
Conservation Security Program.--In order for the Conservation
Security Program (CSP) to work, it must receive more than the
Administration's request of $20 million. WMI believes it must be funded
at its original intent of $2 billion over the next ten years, or $200
million per year.
WMI supports the $8.1 million allocation to the Klamath Basin.
Studies being conducted in the Klamath Basin need to review the impacts
of water shortages on wildlife populations that use the area for
breeding and foraging purposes.

Farm Service Administration
Staff years.--The staffing level of 16,701 FTE's may be too low to
address the administrative needs of the Farm Bill's conservation
programs. WMI recommends that funding be increased to facilitate the
current level of 19,337 FTE's. Despite efforts to ``streamline'' USDA's
application process, the private landowners' demand for participation
in FSA's conservation programs far exceeds the supply; thus the need to
increase staffing levels.
Grassland Reserve Program.--WMI supports the fiscal year 2004
request of $85 million for the Grasslands Reserve Program. This program
will help Congress realize its desired goals for soil, water, and
wildlife conservation.
Conservation Reserve Program.--WMI supports maintaining the
Conservation Reserves Program's (CRP) enrollment at 39.2 million acres.
The demand for CRP justifies its continuation at the recommend acreage.
It has generated historical improvements for wildlife populations and
associated habitat, all through voluntary efforts of willing
landowners. Such benefits include population enhancement for declining
species (e.g., sharp-tailed grouse).
The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), a component of
CRP, is another shining example of how the Conservation Reserve Program
serves the needs of private landowners and all American citizens. CREP
has hit its stride in recent years. Twenty-five states are presently
enrolled in the program, which requires all participating states to
match federal dollars when implementing a project. Pennsylvania in
particular exemplifies how successful CREP can be. In that state,
projects leaders enrolled 100,000-acres within a few years and are now
asking FSA for another 100,000-acres. WMI believes the enrollment cap
of 2 million acres for CREP is achievable in the foreseeable future,
therefore, lending further justification for the Administration's the
39.2 million acre request. However, Congress may need to reconsider the
40 million acre cap when reauthorizing the Farm Bill in 2006.

ANIMAL PLANT AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

Wildlife Services.--WMI is concerned about the proposed $1.5
million decrease for Methods Development in fiscal year 2004.
Technological improvements for controlling nuisance wildlife are
desperately needed. Public groups disfavor traditional control
techniques, such as trapping and poisoning, and are demanding the
development and use of non-lethal and non-injurious alternatives, such
as immunocontraception. Consequently, APHIS must receive sufficient
financial resources to research and develop alternative control
techniques. Thus, WMI recommends the appropriation of $11.5 million for
Wildlife Service's Methods Development account.
Veterinary Sciences.--Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is a national
news item affecting wild and/or captive populations of white-tailed
deer, mule deer and elk in 12 states and 2 Canadian provinces.
Management of this fatal disease is administratively and financial
taxing for state and federal agencies. Moreover, the CWD's impact on
state economies (via hunting seasons) is well documented and comes at a
time when those economies are receding. WMI supports the objectives of
the CWD Implementation Plan and urges your subcommittee to appropriate
$41.8 million to fund the plan's research, surveillance, control, and
communication activities. The $41.8 million takes into consideration
the needs of the Department of the Interior ($7.7 million), Department
of Agriculture ($13.6 million), and State and Tribal Grants via the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ($20.5 million).
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Services
McIntire-Stennis.--WMI recommends that your subcommittee fund the
McIntire-Stennis Program at $30 million in fiscal year 2004. These
research programs, conducted by land grant universities and other
educational institutions, are crucial for promoting natural resource
sustainability now and in the future.
Smith-Lever.--WMI urges your subcommittee to support a $10 million
increase over the Administration's request for the Smith-Lever 3 (d)
Program. The Administration requested a $2.3 million increase over
fiscal year 2003 for this natural resources extension program, but
additional money is needed to expand its services. These programs
facilitate public education on a variety of topics, such as wetlands
conservation, endangered species conservation, forestry and wildlife
management, and human-wildlife conflicts. Our suggested increase would
better prepare agricultural producers for involvement in the Farm
Bill's conservation programs, as well as other public groups that may
serve as partners on select projects.
Thank you for reviewing our comments, and we look forward to
working with you throughout the appropriations process. If you or your
staff would like to discuss our recommendations further, please contact
me or Ron Helinski, Conservation Policy Specialist, at (202) 371-1808.
______

Prepared Statement of The Wildlife Society

The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to submit
testimony concerning the fiscal year 2004 budgets for the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Farm Service Agency (FSA),
Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and Cooperative State
Research, Education and Extension Services (CSREES). The Wildlife
Society is the association of almost 9,000 professional wildlife
biologists and managers dedicated to sound wildlife stewardship through
science and education. The Wildlife Society is committed to
strengthening all Federal programs that benefit wildlife and their
habitats on agricultural and other private land.

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

Farm Bill Technical Assistance.--We applaud Congress for passing
the 2002 Farm Bill, which authorizes the U.S. Department of Agriculture
to work with third party Technical Service Providers to build a solid
network of certified professionals that can assist NRCS in delivering
assistance to producers. However, NRCS recognizes that training will be
needed to effectively prepare Technical Service Providers to assist
producers and landowners. The Wildlife Society recommends that Congress
provide NRCS with adequate funds to recruit land grant universities and
colleges, the USDA Extension System, and professional societies to help
train sufficient Technical Service Providers.
Monitoring and Evaluation.--Monitoring Farm Bill conservation
programs and evaluating their progress toward achieving Congressionally
established objectives for soil, water, and wildlife will enable NRCS
to ensure successful program implementation. Changes to agricultural
policy in the 2002 Farm Bill, such as higher funding authorizations and
expanded acreage enrollment caps, necessitate the establishment of an
accountability system that continuously assesses the effectiveness of
conservation programs and policies. The Wildlife Society recommends
dedicating mandatory funding to the monitoring and evaluation of Farm
Bill conservation programs at the $10 million level approved in the
Farm Bill Statement of Managers. We propose using a competitive grants
process to fund a consortium of non-USDA organizations (non-
governmental organizations, universities, and state organizations) for
the purpose of identifying cost-saving practices, program improvements,
and future funding requirements and determining the environmental and
economic value of conservation expenditures.
Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
(WHIP).--We would like to express our gratitude for your continued
support of WRP and for authorizing WHIP in 2003. WRP is a valuable
program designed to assist farmers and ranchers protect and restore
wetland habitat. WHIP is a voluntary program that provides technical
and financial support to farmers and ranchers to create high quality
wildlife habitat. The Wildlife Society supports funding WRP at $250
million in fiscal year 2004. We are concerned that the Administration's
request for WHIP, $42 million for 2004, is well below the 2002 Farm
Bill's authorized amount of $275 million. The Wildlife Society
recommends funding WHIP at $275 million in 2004.

FARM SERVICE AGENCY

Staff Years.--FSA requires an adequate budget to implement the Farm
Bill conservation programs under its administration. The Wildlife
Society is concerned that the staffing level of 16,701 FTE proposed by
the Administration in 2004 is too low to address the demonstrated need
of agricultural producers. The Wildlife Society recommends that the
budget include sufficient personnel funding to maintain the 2003
requested level of 19,337 FTE.
Grassland Reserve Program (GRP).--We believe the GRP will be
valuable in aiding landowners in their grassland restoration efforts.
The Wildlife Society supports the Administration's 2004 request of $85
million for GRP.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).--CRP is popular with
landowners, and has resulted in significant wildlife and habitat
benefits on agricultural land. Current demand for the program is on the
rise, as is demand for technical assistance associated with
implementation of CRP. The Wildlife Society recommends maintaining CRP
enrollment at 39.2 million acres as finalized in the 2002 Farm Bill.
Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP).--The Forest Land
Enhancement Program was created through the 2002 Farm Bill to provide
financial, technical, educational, and related assistance to promote
sustainable management of non-industrial private forestlands. The
program is authorized at $100 million for 2002-2007, to be distributed
through state forestry agencies. The Wildlife Society asks that
Congress appropriate at least $20 million to FLEP in 2004 to ensure
that private forestlands continue to provide sustainable forest
products and protect the health of our water, air, and wildlife.

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

Wildlife Services.--Wildlife Services (WS), a unit of APHIS, is
responsible for controlling wildlife damage to agriculture,
aquaculture, forest, range and other natural resources, for controlling
wildlife-borne diseases, and for controlling wildlife at airports. Its
activities are based on the principles of wildlife management and
integrated damage management, and are carried out cooperatively with
State fish and wildlife agencies.
The Wildlife Society is concerned about the proposed $1.5 million
decrease in funding for Methods Development for 2004. Many current
wildlife control tools such as traps, snares and wildlife toxicants are
becoming less acceptable to the public and are being prohibited in many
states as the result of public referenda. The only credible way to
identify and perfect new methods is through research. However, WS
funding is only adequate to cover maintenance and operating costs and
no funding is being provided for the development of new innovative
wildlife damage management methods. The Wildlife Society requests a $5
million increase for Methods Development to adequately continue non-
lethal methods research and address the increased operating and
maintenance costs.
Veterinary Services.--Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is a serious
problem plaguing our Nation's deer and elk. The spread of CWD is
draining already diminished Federal and State agency budgets and is
hurting local economies that depends on revenues from recreational
hunting. The Wildlife Society supports the Administration's request of
$14.9 million for the research, monitoring, and control of CWD.

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND EXTENSION SERVICES

Renewable Resources Extension Act.--The Wildlife Society was
pleased that Congress appropriated $423,000 above the Administration's
request for the Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) in 2003. RREA
provides an expanded, comprehensive extension program for forest and
rangeland renewable resources. The need for these programs is greater
now than ever due to fragmentation of ownerships, urbanization, the
number and diversity of landowners needing assistance, and the
increasing social concern for land use and its effect on soil, water,
air, and wildlife.
It is important to note that RREA was reauthorized in the 2002 Farm
Bill at $30 million annually through 2007. Though RREA is proven to be
effective at leveraging cooperative state and local funding, it has
never been fully funded in the annual appropriations process. In fact,
the fiscal year 2004 request for RREA falls back to the 2002 funding
level, $4.093 million, which is insufficient for assisting private
landowners who own and manage most of the nation's natural resources.
An increase to at least $15 million would enable CSREES to expand its
capability to assist more private landowners in improving management of
private land while increasing farm revenue. Therefore The Wildlife
Society recommends that the Renewable Resources Extension Act be funded
at a minimum of $15 million in fiscal year 2004.
McIntire-Stennis.--The McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry
program funds state efforts in forestry research to increase the
efficiency of forestry practices, and to extend the benefits that come
from forest and related rangelands. McIntire-Stennis calls for close
coordination between state colleges and universities and the Federal
Government, and is essential for providing research background for
other Acts, such as RREA. The Administration's fiscal year 2004 request
for McIntire-Stennis is $21.884 million, in essence level with 2002 and
2003. The Wildlife Society recommends that funding for McIntire-Stennis
Cooperative Forestry be increased to $30 million.
National Research Initiative.--National Research Initiative
Competitive Grants (NRI) are open to academic institutions, Federal
agencies, and private organizations to fund research on improving
agricultural practices, particularly production systems that are
sustainable both environmentally and economically, and to develop
methods for protecting natural resources and wildlife. Innovative grant
programs such as NRI help broaden approaches to land management, such
as integrating timber and wildlife management on private lands. The
Wildlife Society supports the Administration's 2004 request of $200
million for National Research Initiative Competitive Grants, and
requests Congressional approval.
Thank you for considering the views of wildlife professionals. We
look forward to working with you and your staff to ensure adequate
funding for wildlife conservation.